THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 


THE 
TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

A    STUDY    IN    THE    EVOLUTION   OF 
PARLIAMENTARY   CORRUPTION 


The  Florentine  secretary's  trb  never  quite  sets." 

LORD  MORLEY. 


NEW    YORK 

DODD,  MEAD  AND  COMPANY 
1920 


PRINTED  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN  BY 
THE  DUNEDIN  PRESS  LIMITED,  EDINBURGH 


PREFACE 

THE  following  pages  attempt  to  give  precision  and 
usefulness  to  the  vague  feeling  that  there  is  some- 
thing wrong  with  politics.  Our  conduct,  in  regard 
to  grave  national  affairs,  is  neither  wise  nor  con- 
sistent. There  is  no  class  of  men  amongst  us  whom 
we  more  generously  flatter  with  public  notice  and 
high-sounding  titles,  yet,  the  moment  the  affairs  we 
have  entrusted  to  them  reach  a  critical  stage,  we 
clamour  for  the  business-man.  There  is,  in  normal 
tunes,  no  saying  more  common  amongst  us  than  that 
the  party-system  suits  what  we  are  pleased  to  call 
the  genius  of  our  race,  yet  we  are  very  apt  at  the 
close  of  a  long  period  of  trial  and  peril  to  assure 
each  other,  with  an  appreciation  of  relief,  that  the 
party-system  is  now  dead  and  ingloriously  buried; 
and  almost  in  the  same  hour  we  follow  with  admira- 
tion the  attempts  of  politicians  to  distribute  us 
afresh  in  new  parties. 

It  were  wiser,  since  the  affairs  entrusted  to  the 
politician  now  lie  at  the  roots  of  our  personal  and 
common  weal,  to  give  a  precise  shape  to  this  dark 
suspicion  we  constantly  mutter  and  as  constantly 
ignore.  Is  our  political  system  corrupt?  Are  we 
merely  foolish,  or  duped,  when  we  hear  of  political 
scandals  abroad  and  thank  the  gods  that  we  are 
not  as  other  men  ?  Why  do  our  politicians  feverishly 
seek,  as  they  did  in  a  recent  debate,  to  shift  from 
their  House  the  "  opprobrium,"  as  they  called  it, 
which  the  country  casts  on  it?  I  seek  to  answer 
these  questions,  not  by  making  a  piquant  collection 
of  rumours  which  one  is  obliged  to  keep  in  anony- 

5 


6  PREFACE 

mous  form,  not  by  strained  conjectures  and  inter- 
pretations, but  by  a  patient  study  of  recorded  facts. 
If  these  facts  belong  in  large  part  to  former  days, 
if  the  earlier  chapters  of  this  work  are  historical, 
they  have  not  the  less  interest  and  pertinence.  No 
part  of  our  national  life  is  so  shaped  and  coloured 
by  its  past  as  our  political  system.  The  quaint  pro- 
ceedings of  our  Houses  of  Parliament  are  not  more 
unintelligible  apart  from  history  than  is  the  be- 
haviour of  our  politicians.  They  are  the  heirs  of  a 
political  system  which  a  century  and  a  half  ago  was 
revoltingly  corrupt,  a  century  ago  still  fiercely  re- 
sisted every  demand  for  the  reform  of  its  corruption, 
and  half  a  century  ago  still  cheated  the  country  by 
mere  pretences  and  the  most  grudging  instalments 
of  reform.  The  taint  is  still  there,  but  we  citizens 
have  set  up  something  in  the  nature  of  a  system  of 
sanitation  which  compels  it  to  seek  new  forms.  The 
story  of  this  evolution  or  transformation  occupies 
much  of  my  space,  since  it  gives  the  inquirer  a  special 
equipment  for  studying  the  subject.  We  then  sur- 
vey the  existing  political  system  in  all  its  branches, 
from  the  constituencies  to  the  cabinet,  and  easily 
define  for  ourselves  its  precise  measure  of  lingering 
corruption,  dishonesty,  chicanery,  sophistry,  and  in- 
competence. Beyond  that  it  is  not  proposed  to  go. 
When  we  have  reached  a  mood  of  genuine  and 
serious  resentment,  when  we  no  longer  laugh  to  hear 
politicians  call  each  other  knaves  and  cozeners, 
knowing  that  to  them  we  have  entrusted  what  is  far 
more  precious  than  a  man's  single  bank-balance, 
we  shall  soon  find  a  remedy. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE. 

I.  THE  STATE  OF  THE  PARLIAMENTARY  MACHINE  9 

II.  THE  SOURCES  OF  POLITICAL  CORRUPTION    .  26 

III.  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  STUART  CORRUPTION  39 

IV.  THE  "  GOLDEN  "  AGE  OF  POLITICS  .            .  52 
V.  THE  FIGHT  FOR  FREEDOM     .            .            .68 

VI.  THE  "  GREAT  "  REFORM  BILL          .            .  86 

VII.  THE  "  REFORMED  "  PARLIAMENT      .            .  104 

VIII.  AMERICA  INVENTS  IHE  CAUCUS         .            .  125 

IX.  THE  ORGANISATION  OF  CORRUPTION  .            .  149 

X.  OUR  POLITICIANS  AND  THE  NATIONAL  CRISIS  170 

XI.  THE  PARTY  SYSTEM  .  .  .  .191 

XII.  THE  POWER  OF  THE  OLIGARCHS        .            .  208 

XIII.  THE  REPRESENTED  AND  THEIR  REPRESENTA- 

TIVES      .....  227 

XIV.  IN  THE  PARLIAMENTARY  LABYRINTH  .            .  244 
XV.  THE  OUTLOOK  257 


CHAPTER  I 

THE   STATE   OF   THE   PARLIAMENTARY   MACHINE 

ON  November  21st,  1918,  a  remarkable  appeal  to 
the  British  people  was  issued  by  what  were  generally 
regarded  as  the  two  most  gifted  and  most  conscien- 
tious statesmen  we  then  possessed.  Inheriting  a 
power  which  had  been  scandalously  misused  during 
one  of  the  gravest  crises  into  which  the  country  had 
ever  passed,  Mr  Lloyd  George  and  Mr  Bonar  Law 
had  nevertheless  contrived  to  avert  disaster  and  to 
restore  the  drooping  prestige  of  the  nation  in  the 
eyes  of  a  wondering  world.  It  was  Carthage  that 
fell.  We,  as  is  our  wont,  genially  overlooked  the 
small  vanity  of  our  politicians,  and  knew  that  only 
a  large  infusion  of  non-political  energy  had  enabled 
our  nervous  administration  to  bring  our  massive 
resources  to  the  point  of  victory.  But  we  at  least 
trusted  that  we  had  found  statesmen  sagacious 
enough  to  perceive,  and  disinterested  enough  to 
accept,  the  moral  of  their  experience.  In  the  fulfil- 
ment of  that  not  less  grave  task  which,  we  dimly 
foresaw,  the  era  of  peace  would  lay  upon  us,  there 
was  to  be  no  dallying  with  "  the  game  of  politics." 
England  had,  in  the  stress  of  a  mighty  struggle, 
suddenly  matured.  Politics  would  be  henceforward 
a  scientific  conception  and  manly  discharge  of  the 
vastest  enterprise  in  the  world. 

The  letter  which  Mr  Bonar  Law  and  Mr  Lloyd 
George  issued  gave  that  impression  to  the  entire 
nation,  except  to  the  adherents  of  a  few  small 

9 


10  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

minorities  whose  personal  interests  would  be  en- 
dangered if  that  conversion  were  genuine  and  sus- 
tained. This  letter  evinced  a  quite  serious  and 
comprehensive  grasp  of  the  nation's  needs,  as  far  as 
they  could  then  be  discovered.  Our  swords  were  to 
be  turned  into  ploughshares  with  the  speed  and 
economy  which  an  ordinary  commercial  firm  would 
devote  to  the  dispatch  of  its  comparatively  trivial 
affairs.  We  pictured  our  five  million  soldiers  and 
three  million  further  war-workers  incorporated  in 
that  depleted  industrial  army  which  had  so  heroic- 
ally met  our  needs,  and  even  sustained  our  comfort, 
during  five  exacting  years.  We  imagined  the  great 
dynamo  of  our  industrial  life  pouring  a  doubled 
energy  into  the  work  of  restoration.  We  talked  of 
a  thousand  million  sterling  of  salvage  from  our 
colossal  stores.  We  pointed  eagerly  to  the  empty 
markets  of  the  world  and  lovingly  counted  our  profit, 
A  few  months  of  brisk,  cheerful  "  conversion  of  in- 
dustries," and  by  Easter  our  streams  of  exports 
would  restore  the  welcome  spectacle  of  incoming 
streams  of  gold,  or  the  equivalent  of  gold. 

The  lessons  of  our  tense  experience  and  dire  need 
were  to  be  applied  richly  to  our  new  economy.  Full 
employment  for  all  and  an  output  far  exceeding 
that  of  1913  were  to  be  secured  by  "  the  develop- 
ment and  control  hi  the  best  interests  of  the  State 
of  the  economic  production  of  power  and  light ;  of 
the  railways  and  means  of  communication;  by  the 
improvement  of  the  consular  service;  and  by  the 
establishment  of  regular  machinery  for  consultation 
with  representative  trade  and  industrial  organisa- 
tions." Just  what  the  more  thoughtful  of  us  had 
dreamed  of  for  ten  years !  The  war  had  brought  a 
premature  tinge  of  gray  to  many  a  head,  but  we 
were  reconciled.  We  were  to  reward  out  "  heroes," 
without  materially  lightening  our  pockets,  by 
putting  them  on  the  land.  Afforestation  and  recla- 


STATE  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  MACHINE    11 

mation  were  to  proceed  at  once.  Our  splendid 
women  were  to  be  encouraged  by  our  sweeping  away 
"  all  existing  inequalities  of  the  law  as  between  man 
and  woman."  Our  agriculture  was  to  be  awakened 
to  a  full  activity  by  a  new  and  better  system  of 
transport.  Our  artisans  were  to  be  won  by  an  ample 
provision  of  houses,  "  unproved  material  condi- 
tions, and  the  prevention  of  degrading  standards  of 
employment." 

Now,  these  things  were  practicable.  They  were 
obvious  statesmanship.  They  promised  a  solution 
of  the  very  grave  problem  which  alone  seemed  to 
mar  our  splendid  prospect.  The  one  shadow  on  the 
brightening  landscape  was,  of  course,  the  shadow  of 
Labour.  The  criminal  blunders  of  the  first  two 
years  of  the  war  had  thoroughly  perverted  the 
standards  of  economy  hi  the  mind  of  the  workers. 
No  one,  it  is  true,  expected  them  to  return  to  the 
conditions  of  1913.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
in  the  winter  of  1918  there  was  quite  a  general  dis- 
position to  meet  this  legitimate  aspiration  of  the 
workers.  The  series  of  economic  reforms  sketchily 
set  forth  in  the  Coalition-program  were  the  obvious 
means  of  doing  it.  The  organisation  of  power  and 
transport,  the  improvement  of  the  consular  service, 
and  the  scientific  direction  of  agriculture,  meant 
larger  markets,  cheaper  production  and  distribu- 
tion, and  a  vast  surplus  of  profit  for  the  improve- 
ment of  wages.  This  was,  said  the  Times  cordially, 
"  an  unimpeachable  document." 

The  defect  of  the  scheme  did  not  escape  notice. 
A  few  days  later  Lord  Dunraven  wrote  in  the  Times 
that  the  Coalition  leaders  had  indeed  expounded 
"  an  admirable  and  an  elaborate  and  ambitious 
scheme  of  social  reform  and  reconstruction,  but  they 
had  omitted  from  it  any  reference  to  the  instrument 
by  which  the  scheme  was  to  be  put  into  operation." 
They  had,  he  rightly  said,  put  forward  a  program 


12  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

"  equal  in  importance,  and  probably  in  bulk,  to  the 
whole  achievement  of  social  reform  in  the  last 
century."  But  they  had  promised  no  improvement 
whatever  hi  the  machinery  of  State  which  had  so 
pitilessly  revealed  its  ineptness  during  the  war. 

Our  politicians  hastened  to  supplement  their  fair 
promises  with  declarations  of  stern  purpose.  Mr 
Lloyd  George  at  once  corned  a  brand-new  formula 
of  statesmanship :  "To  make  Britain  a  fit  country 
for  heroes  to  live  in."  It  is  humorous  to  recall  that 
in  the  same  speech,  delivered  at  Wolverhampton  on 
November  24th,  he  said :  "  There  is  no  time  to 
lose."  Mr  Churchill,  on  the  same  day,  assured  the 
apprehensive  north  that  "  the  world  cannot  be 
allowed  to  slip  back  and  to  settle  down  into  the 
narrow  pre-war  rut."  Mr  Bonar  Law,  next  day, 
solemnly  avowed  that  the  aim  of  his  contingent  of 
the  Coalition  was  "  to  raise  the  condition  of  the  mass 
of  the  people  of  this  country  " ;  and  their  condition 
then,  in  1918,  was  far  better  than  it  had  ever  been 
in  the  history  of  England.  Mr  Asquith,  watching 
this  conversion  with  genuine  concern,  eager  to  prove 
that  Codlin  is  the  friend,  not  Short,  promised,  on 
November  26th,  "  a  life  worth  living  for  every  man, 
woman,  and  child  in  the  kingdom,"  if  we  would 
ignore  these  mendacious  opponents  of  his,  and  send 
him  and  his  friends  to  Westminster.  Mr  Lloyd 
George,  not  to  be  outdone,  assured  us  that  his  im- 
mediate and  sacred  task  would  be  "  the  lifting  of 
the  mass  of  misery,  of  wretchedness,  of  hopelessness 
there  has  been  in  an  old  country  like  this,  the  sweep- 
ing away  of  slums,"  etc.  Mr  Asquith  raised  his  bid ; 
and  on  December  5th,  the  eve  of  the  election,  Mr 
Lloyd  George  drove  his  Right  Honourable  friend 
from  the  democratic  market  by  a  letter  which  ought 
to  have  been  printed  in  gold.  He  was  going,  really, 
to  "  change  the  whole  face  of  existence."  He 
pointed  to  Mesopotamia,  which  was  soon  to  be  the 


STATE  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  MACHINE    18 

orchard,  the  kitchen-garden,  the  new  exclusive 
market  of  England.  He  directed  our  eyes  to  the 
depleted  markets  of  the  world,  and  conjured  up  a 
vision  of  our  magnificent  war-industry,  reinforced 
by  six  million  demobilised  soldiers,  doing  a  porten- 
tously profitable  business.  And  he  said  :  "  The 
government  have  schemes  for  developing  the  re- 
sources of  our  own  country  in  a  way  they  have  never 
been  opened  up  before." 

This  was  decisive.  The  country  gave  Mr  Lloyd 
George  and  Mr  Bonar  Law  such  power  as  statesmen 
have  rarely  enjoyed  before.  Labour,  inexperienced, 
vague  in  its  aims,  conspicuously  lacking  in  ability, 
and  enfeebled  by  a  dreamily  unpatriotic  element, 
was  thrust  aside.  The  ambition  of  the  Asquithites 
was  sternly  punished.  Independent  members  were 
scattered  to  the  winds.  We  were  familiar  enough 
with  the  turning  of  England  into  a  land  of  promises 
on  the  eve  of  an  election,  but  there  seemed  to  be 
something  definite,  serious,  organic  in  these  pro- 
mises. In  any  case,  il  fallait  parier,  to  adapt  the 
famous  motto  of  Pascal.  The  alternative  was  an 
Irish-Labour-Asquith  combination,  which  would 
have  been  pathetically  feeble.  We  bet  on  the  tried 
statesmen  and  their  "  schemes  " ;  and  to-day  we 
nurse  our  sorrows  with  whatever  air  of  philosophy 
we  can  command. 

They  have  certainly  "  changed  the  face  of  exist- 
ence." It  was  as  much  brighter  a  year  ago  as  a 
hill-side  in  Tuscany  is  brighter  than  a  suburb  of 
Manchester.  The  shadow  of  Labour  has  grown 
gigantic.  The  statesmen  who  a  year  ago  pictured  us 
restoring  and  decorating  the  universe,  at  a  pro- 
digious national  profit,  now  set  before  us  the  spectre 
of  national  bankruptcy.  We  have  added,  airily, 
nearly  £1,000,000,000  since  the  armistice  to  a  debt 
which  already  towered  high  above  the  world's 
record.  We  forget  that  this  debt  was  to  be  "  paid 


14  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

in  full  "  by  Germany,  and  we  wrangle  over  rival 
schemes  of  confiscation  and  production,  while  our 
statesmen  sit  dumb  and  our  remaining  capital  is 
converted  into  diamonds  and  cars  and  other  luxuries 
with  a  frivolity  never  known  before  in  the  history 
of  England.  Our  scanty  production  is  incessantly 
suspended  by  strikes,  and  we  wait  twelve  months 
before  we  place  any  restraint  on  a  greed  of  dealers 
which  has  almost  irreparably  torn  the  fabric  of  our 
life.  We  have  an  army  of  900,000  men  a  year  after 
Germany  was  reduced  to  impotence.  We  keep  a 
navy  of  170,000  officers  and  men,  and  an  Admiralty 
staff  of  16,500,  a  year  after  the  complete  annihila- 
tion of  the  only  fleet  that  ever  threatened  us.  Our 
Ministry  of  Munitions  has  still  a  staff  of  more  than 
20,000.  We  (in  November,  1919)  pay  weekly  alms, 
on  a  princely  scale,  to  350,000  men  and  women, 
while  we  wear  out  our  shoes  in  the  search  for  ser- 
vants and  houses.  Our  British  pound,  once  the 
envy  of  the  world,  lingers  at  an  ignominious  rate  of 
exchange.  Our  imports  (largely  of  things  which  we 
could  make)  are  as  opulent  as  our  exports  are 
beggarly.  The  ugly  phrase  "  civil  war  "  is  heard 
every  few  days. 

For  this  criminal  folly  and  extravagance,  this 
dance  of  death,  this  shameless  failure  to  grasp  the 
greatest  opportunity  ever  offered  to  the  nation,  our 
statesmen  are  responsible.  The  dangers  they  had 
to  encounter  were  foreseen.  One  did  not  need  to  be 
a  statesman  to  know  that  the  myriads  of  temporary 
workers  would  evade  demobilisation  by  every  lie 
and  trick  in  the  ample  resources  or  human  nature. 
It  was  plain  even  to  the  man  who  knew  as  little  of 
economics  as  of  teratology  that  unrestricted  profit- 
eering meant  higher  wages,  and  higher  wages 
further  profiteering,  until  the  process  would  ap- 
proach criminal  lunacy.  (Ten  months  after  the 
armistice  I  pay  for  the  paper  on  which  I  write  this 


STATE  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  MACHINE    15 

a  price  which  I  know  to  be  200  per  cent,  higher  than 
the  retailer  need  charge.)  It  was  obvious  that  delay 
was  profoundly  dangerous,  yet,  although  Foch  con- 
fidently predicted  the  issue  from  July,  1918,  so  little 
preparation  was  made  that  the  statesmen  of  Europe 
and  America  took  three  months  to  marshal  their 
gorgeous  staffs  and  camp-followers  for  a  glorified 
parliament,  six  further  months  to  conduct  it,  and  six 
months  more  to  recover  from  the  effort.  It  was 
obvious  that  our  domestic  enterprise  ought  to  run 
concurrently  with  this  prolonged  orgie  of  diplomacy, 
yet  it  was  suspended  as  completely  as  if  there  were 
only  one  Englishman  who  knew  the  elementary  con- 
ditions of  it.  It  was  clear  to  any  sagacious  observer 
of  current  events  that  if  the  quarter  of  a  million 
Socialists  who,  whatever  their  motives,  did  not  want 
to  see  the  country  settled,  had  time  and  opportunity 
and  pretext  to  leaven  the  mass  of  the  workers  before 
production  reached  its  full  development,  they  would 
succeed  in  doing  it.  Not  a  single  thing  of  import- 
ance has  happened  in  the  last  year  which  could 
not  have  been  foreseen. 

Lord  Dunraven  was  right.  The  program  of 
November  21st  was  an  electioneering  window-show, 
not  a  business-agenda.  Before  the  election  took 
place  the  Coalition-leaders  were  compelled,  by 
electoral  strategy,  to  postpone  this  sane  program  to 
certain  catch-vote  cries  that  were  forced  upon  them. 
We  were  to  hang  the  Kaiser  (whom  they  knew 
to  be  securely  entrenched  behind  a  hedge  of 
Dutch  lawyers)  and  demand  an  indemnity  of 
£30,000,000,000  or  so  from  bankrupt  Germany. 
Most  of  us  genially  recognised  at  the  time  that  these 
sops  to  Cerberus  were  merely  verbal.  We  thought 
the  constructive  program  safe.  And  to-day,  after 
twelve  precious  months,  we  understand,  vaguely, 
that  about  5000  houses  have  been  built  out  of  the 
promised  500,000;  we  learn  that  our  national  ex- 


16  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

penditure  is  nearly  £4,000,000  a  day,  or  more  than 
half  our  total  national  production  per  day;  we  find 
our  transport  in  a  state  of  costly  anarchy,  lighting 
and  heating  worse  than  ever,  and  the  great  power- 
scheme  postponed  to  the  Day  of  Judgment ;  and  the 
only  instalment  of  the  glorious  plan  is  that  Mr  Lloyd 
George  has  called  the  agriculturists  together  and 
told  them  that  the  country  expects  them  to  produce 
more,  and  expects  the  banks  to  finance  them,  and 
expects  the  labourers  to  be  good,  and  will  grant 
(or  guarantee)  them  a  further  subsidy  out  of  our 
overflowing  exchequer!  Parturierunt  monies. 

The  political  system  is  inept,  dishonest,  archaic, 
and  contemptible.  Never  again  would  we  have  a 
party-system  in  England,  our  journals  assured  us  in 
1918.  The  situation  is  such  that,  unless  the 
machinery  be  altered,  we  shall  have  to  seek  refuge 
in  a  party-system  from  the  costly  inefficiency  of  its 
rival.  Can  the  machinery  be  altered  ?  What  is 
wrong  with  it  ?  How  is  it  that,  at  a  time  more 
momentous  than  any  we  have  yet  witnessed,  in  the 
hands  of  the  strongest  men  to  whom  we  could  en- 
trust it,  there  has  been  such  a  catastrophic  failure  ? 

It  is  inefficient  because  it  is  corrupt  and  archaic. 
It  is  corrupt  and  archaic  because,  while  we  re-adapt 
the  machinery  of  our  businesses  in  each  advancing 
decade,  we  suffer  the  vastly  more  important 
machinery  of  State  to  escape  re-adaptation.  We 
suffer  this  because  most  of  us  are  dazed  and  duped 
by  the  verbiage  of  politicians  who  do  not  want  it 
altered.  We  should  howl  with  laughter  if  we  read 
that  the  shareholders  of  some  important  syndicate 
had  chosen  a  managing  director  because  he  was  a 
pretty  speaker;  but  we  still  choose  the  managing 
directors  of  our  national  business  on  their  oratorical 
qualifications,  their  powers  of  mystification. 

Let  us  try  to  determine  coldly,  patiently,  and 
summarily  the  defects  of  our  political  system.  The 


STATE  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  MACHINE    17 

man  who  dislikes  the  words  "  taint  "  and  "  corrup- 
tion "  has  to  face  the  fact  that  we  were,  somehow, 
grossly  deceived  at  the  last  election.  We  were 
deceived  at  every  other  election,  but  in  this  case  the 
deception  was  as  indelicate  in  its  opportunity  as  it 
was  disastrous  in  its  consequences.  Each  party 
promised  us  an  earthly  paradise.  Not  one  would 
have  done  differently  than  has  been  done.  But  it 
will  be  best  in  this  summary  analysis  to  take  the  sys- 
tem in  its  actual  form,  leaving  to  later  chapters  the 
justification  and  the  enlargement  of  the  indictment. 

The  general  judgment  of  the  country,  that,  if  a 
few  statesman  were  to  be  supremely  entrusted  with 
the  great  task  of  reconstruction,  Mr  Lloyd  George 
and  Mr  Bonar  Law  were  the  best  for  the  purpose, 
is  as  defensible  to-day  as  it  was  in  1918.  It  is  as  futile 
to  quarrel  with  democracy  as  it  is  to  say  that  the 
present  Government  does  not  represent  the  British 
people.  When  the  Daily  Mail  cast  its  influence  into 
the  scale  against  the  Coalition,  it  was  pressed  to 
suggest  an  alternative  group  of  statesmen  or  an 
alternative  program.  It  refused  to  publish,  much 
less  to  comply  with,  the  request.  An  Asquith  re- 
gime was,  after  the  horrors  of  1914-1916,  unthink- 
able. A  Henderson- Webb  regime  seemed  hardly  less 
ludicrous  or  dangerous  at  such  a  time.  A  conflict- 
ing batch  of  fairly  evenly  balanced  groups  would 
have  been  still  worse. 

But  in  choosing  Mr  Lloyd  George  and  Mr  Bonar 
Law  we,  against  our  hope,  gave  renewed  life  to 
some  of  the  worst  features  of  the  party-system.  In 
our  eagerness  and  cheerfulness  we  thought  that 
coalition  meant  coalescence;  that  party  distinctions 
had  gone.  We  were  soon  undeceived.  Each  leader 
had  to  contribute  a  party  and  a  party  fund  to  the 
enterprise,  and  the  offices  of  second  and  third  rank 
had  to  be  distributed  on  the  oldest  traditions  of  the 
division  of  spoils.  While  private  firms  were  pre- 

B 


18  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

paring  with  every  modern  device  to  meet  the  strain 
of  the  new  era,  our  politicians,  the  directors  of  our 
vast  imperial  business,  were  consulting  precedents 
of  the  time  of  William  the  Third  and  Anne,  or 
clinging  to  the  methods  of  Earl  Danby  and  Sir 
Robert  Walpole.  Mr  Bonar  Law  apparently  stipu- 
lated that  inherited  mediocrities  or  enfeebled 
veterans  of  his  party  should  occupy  positions  of  vital 
importance.  Mr  Lloyd  George  had  to  reward  men 
who  speculated  on  his  fortunes  rather  than  on  those 
of  Mr  Asquith.  As  to  competence  .  .  .  We 
would  muddle  through. 

Similarly  in  regard  to  funds.  The  Conservative 
Party  being  in  a  position  to  devote  its  whole  accumu- 
lated funds  to  the  campaign,  while  the  Liberal  funds 
were  confiscated  by  an  ambitious  minority,  it 
followed  that  the  Conservatives  must  form  two-thirds 
of  the  Coalition  representatives  in  Parliament.  We 
have,  of  course,  got  rid  for  ever  of  bribery  at  elec- 
tions. A  man  no  longer  needs  £20,000  to  persuade 
2,000  voters  that  he  will  be  their  loyal  and  attentive 
servant.  An  enlightened  constituency  calmly  chooses 
its  representative.  But  somehow  it  still  costs  from 
one  to  two  thousand  pounds  to  direct  the  judgment 
of  this  enlightened  constituency  to  a  sound  conclu- 
sion. Take  a  fairly  typical  case  at  the  last  election. 
A,  B,  and  C  contested  a  certain  "  cheap  "  division. 
I  happen  to  know  that  B's  modest  expenses  were 
£500,  and  on  that  basis  may  confidently  assume  that 
C's  expenses  were  not  more  than  .£300,  and  A's  ex- 
penses not  less  than  £1,000.  The  issue  of  the  elec- 
tion faithfully  reflected  this  expenditure.  A,  a 
Coalition-Conservative,  ran  away  with  the  -election. 
C,  a  Labour  candidate,  did  not  poll  enough  to  get 
back  his  deposit.  A  was  not  a  wealthy  man.  Now 
that  the  salary  of  a  Member  of  Parliament  is  £400 
a  year,  and  will  soon  be  £500  or  £600,  it  is  possibly 
a  reasonable  speculation  to  invest  £1,000  in  an 


STATE  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  MACHINE    19 

election,  seeing  that  the  duties  are  not  onerous 
enough  to  exclude  other  employment.  In  all  pro- 
bability, however,  A  received  half  or  more  of  his 
election  expenses  hi  return  for  his  promise  of  faith- 
ful support.  In  other  cases  the  candidate  is  wealthy 
enough  to  "  nurse  "  the  constituency  for  years  and 
dispense  with  party  aid.  The  majority  of  such 
candidates  are  Conservatives.  Instances  of  both 
types  will  be  given  in  a  later  chapter. 

It  will  be  shown  later  how  the  policy  of  a  Govern- 
ment was  modified,  even  under  so  stern  a  Puritan 
as  Mr  Gladstone,  by  a  rich  donation  to  the  party 
funds.  Such  incidents  rarely  get  publicity,  for  it  is 
not  to  the  interest  of  any  party  to  encourage 
detectives.  Journals  like  the  Herald  or  the  Labour 
Leader,  which  call  to  us  to  rend  this  veil  of  secrecy, 
would  not  dare  to  publish  a  complete  budget  and 
subscription  list  of  their  own.  Incidents  enough 
will  be  given  later,  but  they  are  hardly  necessary. 
Those  who  pay  the  piper  call  the  tune,  or  they  are 
in  some  other  way  rewarded  for  their  modesty. 
Some  of  the  more  remarkable  "  honours  "  which 
have  appeared  in  the  lists  since  December,  1918, 
have  an  obvious  implication.  Mr  Lloyd  George  had 
to  create  a  fund  of,  one  supposes,  at  least  a  quarter 
of  a  million.  The  Conservatives  had  far  more  than 
that,  and  they  became  the  predominant  partner  of 
the  Coalition.  It  was  the  party  game  in  all  its 
virginal  freshness. 

But  the  program?  It  is  unnecessary  to  attempt 
to  analyse  the  minds  of  politicians.  The  chief 
feature  which  had  ensured  success  in  the  business  of 
the  war  was  organisation.  It  was  obvious  to  sug- 
gest an  application  of  this  to  the  new  tasks  of  power- 
supply,  production,  distribution,  and  commerce. 
This  would  attract  the  imagination  of  the  country; 
and  it  really  might  prove  possible  to  do  something. 
The  Conservatives  agreed,  because  they  had  a  vague 


20  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

idea  that  the  most  profitable  form  of  organisation 
had  been  that  which  not  merely  did  not  supersede 
private  enterprise,  but  actually  enriched  it  with 
guarantees  and  subsidies  and  protection. 

The  great  plan  was  nothing  more  than  a  superficial 
synthesis  of  current  ideas.  There  was  no  elabora- 
tion, no  agreement  on  basic  ideas  as  to  the  form  of 
this  new  national  organisation.  Both  sides  probably 
knew  that  there  would  be  no  Coalition  at  all  if  the 
discussion  were  pushed  too  far.  Possibly  Mr  Lloyd 
George,  certainly  some  of  his  supporters,  thought  of 
genuine  national  action  in  the  nation's  interest.  The 
vast  profit  which  would  accrue  from  this  organisa- 
tion of  the  basic  factors  of  the  national  economy 
would  pay  the  inevitable  increase  of  wages  that 
would  be  demanded.  Here  the  more  powerful 
element  of  the  Coalition  used  its  power.  Private 
enterprise— that  is  to  say,  the  enterprising  manu- 
facturers and  dealers  who  create  party-funds — was 
to  have  a  large  share  of  this  vast  new  profit.  The 
proper  function  of  Government  is  to  protect  them, 
subsidise  them,  or  guarantee  them  high  prices. 
Witness  the  miserable  form  in  which  the  Govern- 
ment's agricultural  proposals  have  at  length 
appeared.  So  the  whole  scheme  was  wrecked,  and 
we  look  forward  to  a  long,  sullen,  costly,  and  danger- 
ous conflict  of  Labour  and  Capital. 

The  network  of  interests  in  which  the  procedure 
of  our  politicians  involves  and  enmeshes  them 
accounts  also  in  large  part  for  the  appalling  financial 
scandal  of  the  last  twelve  months.  Mr  Lloyd  George 
quite  plainly  told  the  country  last  November  that, 
in  the  conviction  of  our  financial  experts,  nothing 
like  a  full  indemnity  could  be  expected  from  Ger- 
many. Those  of  us  who  knew  Germany  agreed. 
But  under  the  pressure  of  journals  which  threatened 
to  divert  a  million  votes  from  the  Coalition,  Mr 
Lloyd  George  was  compelled — it  is  to  his  credit  that 


STATE  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  MACHINE    21 

he  at  least  tried  hard  to  mitigate  the  folly — to  adopt 
the  slogan.  As  a  financier,  he  must  have  known 
that  we  would  in  reality  get  little  more  than  a  tithe 
of  our  indemnity,  and  that  we  must  set  about  a 
drastic  and  speedy  economy,  in  face  of  a  formidable 
reluctance  of  departments,  and  put  a  master-brain 
in  control  of  our  finances.  One  can  imagine  his  feel- 
ings when  he  found  himself  compelled  to  accept  Mr 
Austen  Chamberlain.  It  was  part  of  the  price  of 
securing  power.  Behind  Mr  Chamberlain  were 
several  hundred  Liberal  and  Conservative  members 
whose  knowledge  of  economics  consisted  only  in  the 
magic  formula  "  increased  production."  They  re- 
presented wealthy  or  comfortable  folk  who  were 
going  to  be  wealthier  or  more  comfortable  than 
ever;  while  their  income-tax  would  sink  to  a 
shilling,  because  Germany  would  undertake  the  in- 
terest on  the  Debt.  As  to  Labour,  it  would,  of 
course,  profit  by  its  increased  production — possibly 
get  a  few  shillings  more  than  it  did  in  1913 — and  so 
it  might  reasonably  be  expected,  or  in  the  event  of 
reluctance  be  compelled,  to  roll  its  shirt-sleeves  up 
to  the  shoulder.  England  was  going  to  be  a  merry 
country. 

When  this  child-like  philosophy  was  shattered  on 
realities,  both  Treasury  and  Parliament  were  ludi- 
crously impotent.  Mr  Austen  Chamberlain  sat  in 
tears  :  Parliament  in  a  sort  of  mild  bovine  wonder. 
Taking  advantage  of  the  archaic  simplicity  of  the 
political  scheme,  departments  snapped  their  fingers 
in  the  face  of  the  Treasury,  and  hundreds  of  thous- 
ands of  incompetents  continued  to  find  shelter  in 
their  enlarged  premises  from  the  keen  winds  of  the 
open  labour-market.  Day  by  day  any  person  who 
cared  to  take  the  trouble  could  see  highly-paid 
officials  in  London  doing  half  the  work  of  a  third- 
rate  clerk.  At  Woolwich  Arsenal  they  were  still 
making  guns  in  March,  1919,  and  clerks  in  White- 


22  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

hall  were  keeping  the  accounts.  In  the  provinces 
and  abroad  the  scandal  was  even  worse.  In 
October  there  were  firms  making  tanks.  The  army 
mutinied,  and  the  trouble  was  met  by  the  one 
remedy  known  in  Westminster :  more  money.  So 
large  a  proportion  of  our  officers  now  got  more  than 
they  had  any  hope  of  getting  in  an  open  competi- 
tion for  employment  that  they  resisted  demobilisa- 
tion. In  short,  while  we  bled  at  every  financial  pore, 
the  machinery  of  State  proved  itself  ridiculously  in- 
adequate and  the  responsible  authorities  ludicrously 
powerless.  Parliament  would  not  seriously  inter- 
vene because  the  members  did  not  want  another 
election.  The  man  who  had  staked  a  thousand 
pounds  on  his  parliamentary  chances  wanted  five 
years'  profit  on  his  capital.  The  men  whose  ex- 
penses had  been  met  by  "  the  party,"  or  by  some 
wealthy  adherent  of  the  party  who  was  grateful  for 
favours  to  come,  were  very  uncertain  of  re- 
election. Up  to  the  date  at  which  this  is  written, 
during  nearly  a  year  of  the  grossest  extravagance 
and  criminal  maladministration,  Parliament  has 
only  found  courage  once  to  question  the  high  wis- 
dom of  the  Cabinet ;  and  that  was  over  a  matter  of 
twenty-four  French  pilots,  and  the  revolt  was  accom- 
panied by  warm  assurances  that  the  censure  must 
be  understood  not  to  go  beyond  this  trivial  point ! 

Thus,  without  putting  the  least  reliance  on 
rumours,  without  any  indulgence  in  the  not  uncom- 
mon practice  of  converting  dark  suspicions  into 
positive  facts,  we  find  the  machinery  of  State  en- 
tirely unworthy  of  the  age  in  which  we  live  and 
scandalously  inadequate  to  its  tasks.  We  suffer 
the  great  modern  work  of  national  administration 
to  be  blended  with,  and  perverted  by,  a  political 
system  which  is  thoroughly  tainted;  and  the  taint 
spreads  through  the  army  and  navy  and  civil  ser- 
vices which  depend  upon  the  political  system. 


STATE  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  MACHINE    23 

Instead  of  choosing  administrators  on  the  ground 
of  their  ability,  we  see  our  democratic  choosers 
drenched  by  an  outpour  of  insincere  oratory  and 
promises,  and  enmeshed  in  a  network  of  paid  enter- 
prise and  organisation,  the  power  of  which  they  fail 
to  perceive.  We  find  this  organisation  centring 
about  the  persons  of  a  few  professional,  and  to  a 
large  extent  hereditary,  politicians,  who  fight  each 
other  much  as  the  Blues  and  Greens  fought  in  the 
ancient  Roman  Circus.  Each  has  his  large  group  of 
prospective  placemen,  or  "  careerists,"  the  last 
qualification  of  whom  is  mere  ability.  From  the 
youngest  aspiring  secretary  to  the  would-be  minister 
they  are  in  a  great  measure  mere  servants  of  the 
sacred  "  party " :  men  whose  fathers  richly  en- 
dowed its  funds,  men  who  have  inherited  names  of 
party-significance,  men  of  the  hereditary  caste  of 
legislators,  men  who  by  open  speech  or  secret  in- 
trigue served  the  party,  unpaid,  for  years  in  the 
certain  hope  of  rising  higher,  men  who  have  a  follow- 
ing that  it  is  the  party's  interest  to  conciliate.  So 
we  get  Hendersons  at  the  Board  of  Education, 
Illingworths  at  the  Post  Office,  Chamberlains  at  the 
Treasury,  Cecils  at  the  Foreign  Office,  Herbert  Glad- 
stones as  Viceroys,  and  so  on. 

Having  thus  secured  office  in  a  contest  of  promises 
which  have  the  maximum  of  speciousness  and  the 
minimum  of  practicability,  having  secured  in  ad- 
vance (by  distribution  of  the  party-funds)  that  the 
representatives  of  the  people  shall  be  a  "tied  house," 
the  group  of  speculators  who  have  successfully 
floated  their  company  distribute  its  better-paid 
offices  amongst  themselves  and  their  necessary  sup- 
porters. Their  depleted  treasury  is  re-filled  by  a 
shower  of  honours  (apart  from  genuine  rewards  of 
merit)  nicely  graduated  according  to  contributions. 
Each  of  the  honoured  men  has,  of  course,  done  some- 
thing or  other  which  may  be  dressed  into  a  pretext 


24  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

in  the  "  List  of  Honours."  No  one  supposes 
that  the  successful  boot-manufacturer  has  crudely 
approached  a  Liberal  or  Conservative  official  with  a 
cheque  for  ,£17,000  and  said :  "I  want  a  baronetcy 
for  this."  It  is  therefore  possible  for  the  higher 
representative  of  the  party  in  the  House  to  deny 
indignantly  that  honours  are  sold.  But  the  wealthy 
man  who  is  desirous  of  such  things  may  learn  in  any 
London  club  what  the  respective  contributions  to 
the  party-funds  of  the  latest  baronet  and  knight 
were;  and  the  man  of  leisure  who  cares  to  inquire 
what  precisely  were  the  "  local  services  "  which  are 
appended  to  the  name  of  Sir  Algernon  Pumpkin, 
Bart.,  in  the  last  Honours  List  will  be  greatly 
edified  at  the  extreme  generosity  with  which  such 
things  are  rewarded  by  our  politicians.  The  party- 
chest  steadily  fills  for  the  next  election. 

Our  successful  politicians  then  settle  down  to  the 
dual  task  of  retaining  office,  which  comes  first, 
and  administering  the  country.  Our  unsuccessful 
politicians  devote  themselves  to  the  single  task  of 
ejecting  their  rivals  as  speedily  as  possible.  It 
would  be  a  fascinating  game  to  watch  if,  meantime, 
we  had  not  entrusted  them  with  the  care  of  a 
national  business  worth  £2,000,000,000  a  year.  The 
tricks,  precedents,  conventions,  subtleties,  and 
tactics  of  the  game  are  so  numerous  that  we  have 
to  pay  a  speaker  and  his  staff  about  £10,000  a  year 
to  be  umpires.  One  has  to  keep  a  "  good  House," 
a  "  good  Press."  One  has  to  watch  malcontents, 
and  weigh  the  chances  of  buying  them  or  suppress- 
ing them.  One  has  to  study  daily  the  open  tactics 
and  secret  intrigues  of  an  opposition  which  is  led 
by  a  man  who  has  been  playing  the  game,  perhaps, 
for  fifty  years.  One  has  to  help  the  incompetents 
out  of  their  difficulties  and  chasten  the  undue  ambi- 
tion of  the  competent.  One  has  to  keep  a  reserve 
of  pensions,  offices,  and  occasional  jobs  for  literary 


STATE  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  MACHINE    25 

and  other  servants  outside.  One  has  to  give  un- 
truthful answers  to  questions,  and  untruthful 
accounts  of  our  progress,  without  the  possibility  of 
being  found  out.  It  is  a  great  game— for  the 
players.  We  others  must  be  content  with  the  pros- 
pect of  a  ten-shilling  income-tax,  a  levy  on  capital, 
or  bankruptcy. 

This  tainted  system  is  quite  unintelligible  unless 
you  know  something  about  its  history.  It  is  the 
slightly  modernised  version  of  a  very  ancient  and 
disreputable  game.  Everybody  knows  that  a  vote 
was  once  worth  ten  or  twenty  guineas,  and  that  the 
taps  once  ran  beer  or  wine  (according  to  the  number 
of  voters)  on  election-day.  But,  since  we  have  sup- 
pressed this  open  bribery,  few  realise  how  stubbornly 
a  corrupt  past  lives  still  in  our  political  system  : 
how  the  taint  has  merely  changed  its  forms  in  order 
to  elude  our  modern  political  sanitation.  A  few 
chapters  will  therefore  be  devoted  to  tracing  the  rise 
and  culmination  of  political  corruption,  and  its 
evolution,  under  the  pressure  of  reform-movements, 
into  its  modern  shape.  Then  I  return  to  the 
machinery  of  State  as  we  know  it  to-day,  and  fur- 
nish abundant  evidence  for  the  summary  indictment 
which  I  have  given  in  this  chapter. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   SOURCES   OF  POLITICAL   CORRUPTION 

THE  sources  of  English  political  corruption  are 
usually  located  in  the  reign  of  the  Stuarts,  but, 
although  it  is  not  expedient  here  to  wander  far  from 
our  proper  subject,  it  is  advisable  to  realise  that 
political  life  nearly  everywhere  is,  and  always  has 
been,  more  or  less  tainted.  We  are  not  more  corrupt 
than  the  Athenian  democracy  was  in  the  days  of 
Epicurus  or  the  Italian  democracies  of  the  Renais- 
sance were.  Our  parliamentary  life  is  not  inferior 
to  that  of  France,  and  it  is  far  purer  than  that  of 
Spain.  Our  politicians  need  not  blush  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  politicians  of  Australia  and  New 
Zealand,  and  they  will  assuredly  not  be  recom- 
mended to  take  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
as  a  model.  Nor  is  the  taint  in  the  least  peculiar 
to  democracies.  It  was  at  its  worst  in  England 
under  the  later  Stuarts  and  the  House  of  Brunswick ; 
and  the  foulest  European  exhibition  of  corrupt 
statesmanship  was  afforded  by  the  ministers  of  an 
autocratic  Tsar.  Indeed,  we  must  not  in  our  indig- 
nation forget  that  dishonesty  is  as  rife  in  law  or 
commerce  as  in  politics.  It  is  the  far  graver  cost  of 
the  taint  in  national  enterprises  which  ought  especi- 
ally to  inflame  us  against  political  irregularities. 

The  truth  is  that  the  taint  set  in  as  soon  as  men 
began  to  achieve  by  wit  what  in  a  more  primitive 
state  they  had  won  by  the  sword :  in  other  words, 
as  soon  as  politics  was  born.  The  development  is 
naively  depicted  in  Wagner's  dramas,  where  Loge, 

26 


SOURCES  OF  POLITICAL  CORRUPTION    2? 

the  embodiment  of  craft  and  duplicity,  is  as  valu- 
able a  servant  as  Siegfried  and  as  great  a  power  as 
Wot  an.  Wit  was  born  in  an  age  when  the  law  of 
the  stronger  still  ruled.  The  stronger  wit  was  as 
ruthless  as  the  stronger  arm.  Witless  warriors, 
whose  vocation  was  threatened,  might  gird  and  rail 
at  the  new  development.  Kings  found  that  it  paid, 
and  the  counsellor  stood  equal  with  the  soldier. 
Secret  diplomacy,  chicanery,  and  deceit  were  born 
in  barbarism.  Even  such  an  Empire  as  the  Musco- 
vite was  largely  based  on  it;  for  Ivan  III.,  centuries 
before  Russia  was  civilised,  realised  that  the  pen  was 
mightier  than  the  sword — and  far  cheaper  and  safer. 

It  is  not  unusual  to  trace  the  poisoning  of 
European  politics  to  Machiavelli,  and  that  cold- 
blooded codification  of  corrupt  procedure,  The 
Prince,  has  not  been  without  influence.  In  this  age 
of  apologists  even  Machiavelli  has  found  at  least 
extenuating  writers.  He  had,  it  seems,  a  deep 
sympathy  with  the  people  of  Italy  who  groaned 
under  a  score  of  petty  tyrants,  and  in  hailing  Cesare 
Borgia  he  hailed  the  deliverer  of  men  from  a  sordid 
despotism.  Cesare,  it  is  suggested,  concealed  from 
Machiavelli  the  selfishness  of  his  aim  and  the  moral 
obliquity  of  his  character.  The  seventh  chapter  of 
The  Prince,  the  longest  of  the  book,  undoes  this 
apology.  It  positively  chuckles  over  Cesare 's 
appallingly  unscrupulous  actions  in  founding  an 
Italian  princedom,  even  over  the  piece  of  brutality 
he  perpetrated  at  Sinigaglia.  "  Having  thus  re- 
corded all  the  actions  of  the  Duke,"  says  Machia- 
velli, "I  see  not  one  to  blame.  It  seems  to  me 
clearer  than  ever  that  we  must,  as  I  have  done,  set 
him  forth  as  an  example  for  all  those  who  have,  by 
good  fortune  and  the  arms  of  others,  covered  the 
distance  which  separated  them  from  the  throne." 

Machiavelli,  in  other  words,  codes,  but  codes  with 
entire  approval,  the  unscrupulous  statesmanship  of 


28  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

his  time,  or  the  mixture  of  lying,  cozening,  and 
fighting  that  went  by  the  name  of  statesmanship. 
He  had  no  influence  in  corrupting  his  own  age,  for 
he  merely  reflects  and  analyses  its  corruption,  and 
one  may  doubt  if  his  counsels  really  added  anything 
to  the  native  ingenuity  of  t  such  monarchs  as 
Frederick  the  Great  or  such  statesmen  as  Mazarin 
and  Metternich.  He  is  but  a  literary  monument  of 
the  politics  of  his  time,  a  witness  that  already  states- 
manship was  synonymous  with  craft  amongst  the 
young  nations  of  Europe.  When  Machiavelli  was  in 
his  cradle  there  was  not  one  of  the  leading  powers 
of  Italy — Naples,  the  Papacy,  Florence,  Milan,  and 
Venice — that  was  not,  as  we  should  now  say, 
thoroughly  Machiavellian.  There  was  hardly  a 
great  family  of  Italy — the  Sforze,  Colonne,  Orsini, 
and  so  on — that  was  not  corrupt.  And  France, 
Spain,  and  the  Empire  were  little  inferior  to  them 
in  cunning,  and  only  less  skilful  in  lying.  The 
Prince  was  written  in  1513,  the  year  in  which 
Giovanni  de  Medici  assumed  the  Papal  tiara  and  the 
name  of  Leo  X.  At  his  thoroughly  corrupt  court, 
in  his  chancellory  (which  broke  all  European  re- 
cords of  duplicity),  the  book  was  received  as  a  clever 
and  entertaining  compilation  of  the  laws  of  nature. 

A  complete  account  of  the  evolution  of  political 
corruption  would  therefore  fill  volumes,  and  it  will 
suffice  here  to  describe  how  justly  lay  monarchs  and 
statesmen  might  have  pleaded  that  they  did  but 
mould  then1  ways  as  they  were  exhorted,  on  the 
model  of  the  Eternal  City.  Corruption  in  England 
begins  so  markedly  with  a  Prince  of  the  Church, 
Wolsey,  and  so  particularly  in  his  relations  with 
Rome,  that  a  glance  at  the  evolution  of  Papal 
politics  will  not  be  regarded  as  superfluous. 

With  the  casuistic  aspect  of  this  development,  the 
question  whether  the  towering  ideal  of  Rome  justi- 
fied means  of  realisation  which  were  in  themselves 


SOURCES  OF  POLITICAL  CORRUPTION    29 

irregular,  we  have  nothing  to  do.  The  plain  fact  is 
that  perverse  wit  began  to  rival  the  sword  of  the 
Teuton  in  the  new  Europe  when  Churchmen  based 
their  power  upon  such  acknowledged  forgeries  as  the 
Donation  of  Const antine,  the  Donation  of  Charle- 
magne, and  the  False  Decretals.  Even  the  most 
profoundly  religious  of  the  Popes,  such  as  Innocent 
III.,  countenanced  a  diplomacy  which  would  have 
extorted  the  admiration  of  the  Florentine  secretary. 
One  need  only  instance  Innocent's  dealings  with  the 
youthful  Frederic,  with  Otto  of  Germany,  with  John 
of  England,  or  with  the  revolting  authors  of  the  Albi- 
gensian  crusade.  The  sojourn  of  his  successors,  a 
hundred  years  Later,,  at  Avignon,  developed  this  casu- 
istry in  less  reputable  form,  and  for  less  unselfish  pur- 
poses, and  the  Papal  Court  became  a  bye-word  in 
Europe  for  diplomatic  and  administrative  corruption. 
It  will,  however,  be  enough  if  we  briefly  examine  the 
procedure  of  the  Papacy  in  the  time  of  Machiavelli. 

Papal  politics,  which  had  always  been  casuistic, 
assumed  a  quite  unscrupulous  form  in  the  early 
decades  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  corruption 
began  in  one  of  those  amiable  weaknesses  which  the 
delinquent  Popes  would  have  been  painfully 
astonished  to  hear  described  as  criminal,  yet  which 
in  their  grave  and  far-reaching  consequence  must 
be  so  described.  It  began  with  nepotism.  A 
learned  and  quite  pious  Spanish  bishop,  Alfonso 
Borgia,  obtained  the  tiara  in  1455,  and  he  had  little 
suspicion  that  the  young  nephews,  for  whom  he  made 
smooth  the  path  of  ecclesiastical  promotion,  would 
cause  the  name  of  his  family  to  linger  in  history  as 
the  very  personification  of  corruption.  Twenty  years 
later  a  pious  monk  of  the  obscure  family  of  the 
Rovere  mounted  the  Papal  throne.  He  thought 
virtue  quite  consistent  with  nepotism,  and  a  fresh 
brood  of  nephews,  spoiled  by  sudden  luxury  and 
almost  destitute  of  moral  principle,  assisted  in  the 


30  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

degradation  of  Rome.  Innocent  VIII.,  again  a  man 
of  piety  and  of  regular  life,  brought  a  third  strain 
of  unscrupulous  nephews.  Between  these  and  the 
older  Roman  families  there  set  in  a  contest  for  the 
wealth  of  the  Vatican  in  which  bribery  and  treachery 
were  the  most  familiar  and  the  most  humane  weapons. 

Out  of  this  fetid  struggle  of  ambitions  Alexander 
VI.,  at  a  cost  of  about  one  million  sterling  and  a 
few  score  murders,  rose  to  the  Papal  throne  and 
wrote  an  unforgettable  page  of  history.  I  am  con- 
cerned here  only  with  the  way  in  which  he  and  his 
cardinals  infected,  or  more  deeply  infected,  the 
chancellories  of  Europe.  His  quick-change  alliances 
represented  an  entirely  unscrupulous  application  of 
cunning  to  statesmanship.  He  had  not  the  feeblest 
sense  of  honour,  but  changed  secretly  from  France 
to  Naples,  or  Milan  to  Florence,  the  moment  his 
interest  altered ;  and  he  took  a  cynical  delight  in 
deceiving  his  friends  of  the  previous  hour.  His 
method  of  ruining  the  cardinals  of  the  older  Italian 
houses,  the  rebellious  barons  of  his  court,  provided 
a  plain  precedent  for  his  son,  and  every  step  in 
Cesare's  infamous  career  was  approved  and  ap- 
plauded by  him.  In  ten  years  of  this  utter  disregard 
of  every  dictate  of  honour  and  justice  he,  the  central 
figure  of  Christendom,  doubled  the  lamentable 
quantity  of  political  poison  in  the  veins  of  Europe. 

On  this  one  need  not  dwell  at  any  length,  since 
the  whole  world  now  acknowledges  the  complete 
immorality  of  Alexander  VI.  What  is  not  generally 
recognised  is  that  the  political  corruption  of  the 
Borgia  did  not  merely  linger  for  twenty  years  at  the 
Vatican,  but  was  deepened  under  his  two  famous 
successors,  Julius  II.  and  Leo  X.  Creighton  is  not 
an  illiberal  historian  of  the  Popes,  but  he  is  moved 
to  call  the  diplomacy  of  Julius  II.  "  as  revolting  as 
the  frank  unscrupulousness  of  Alexander  VI."  The 
terms  of  his  censure  are  not  happily  chosen,  for 


SOURCES  OF  POLITICAL  CORRUPTION    81 

Julius  was  just  as  frankly  unscrupulous  as  his  pre- 
decessor and  life-long  rival.  From  the  hour  of  his 
accession,  which  he  had  secured  by  bribery,  he 
entered  upon  a  campaign  for  the  recovery  of  the 
Papal  States  in  which  every  principle  of  honour  and 
truthfulness  was  violated.  Like  Alexander,  he  re- 
garded alliances  as  temporary  expedients  in  a  grand 
game  of  deception.  On  one  occasion  he  carried  his 
policy  to  a  point  which  outraged  even  the  insensitive 
princes  of  Italy.  He  granted  a  safe-conduct  to  the 
Duke  of  Ferrara,  to  come  to  Rome  to  negotiate,  and 
then  wished  to  ignore  it  and  destroy  his  captive  oppo- 
nent on  the  ground  that  he  had  now  discovered  fresh 
crimes  which  were  not  covered  by  the  safe-conduct. 
He  died  in  1513,  the  year  in  which  Machiavelli 
wrote  his  treatise  of  political  casuistry.  In  that  year 
Giovanni  de  Medici,  son  of  the  famous  Lorenzo,  be- 
came Pope,  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  match  his 
duplicity  from  the  annals  of  diplomacy.  The 
doctrine  of  Treitschke,  and  those  other  German 
political  theorists  who  held  that  a  contract  bound 
a  State  only  as  long  as  the  circumstances  remained 
unchanged,  is  quite  respectable  in  comparison  with 
the  maxims  of  Leo  X.  "  When  you  have  made  a 
league  with  one  man,"  he  used  to  say,  "  there  is  no 
reason  why  you  should  cease  to  negotiate  with  his 
opponent."  The  way  in  which  the  corpulent  pontiff 
carried  out  this  maxim  in  practice  causes  even  the 
Catholic  historian  Pastor  to  blush  for  his  "  un- 
paralleled double-dealing."  Before  he  had  been  a 
year  on  the  throne  he  signed  a  secret  treaty  with 
France  against  Spain  and  a  secret  treaty  with  Spain 
against  France.  At  a  later  date  he  signed  two 
similar  treaties  within  a  fortnight.  In  all  such  cases 
the  interest  of  himself  and  his  relatives  was  secured, 
whoever  won  in  the  ceaseless  conflicts.  His  whole 
pontificate  was  spent  in  double-dealing  of  this  kind, 
and  the  movements  of  his  troops,  as  one  or  other 


82  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

monarch  pressed  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  secret 
obligations,  present  a  humorous  spectacle  to  the  eye 
of  the  historian.  It  is  estimated  that  in  eight  years 
he  entered  into  one  hundred  secret  treaties;  and  it 
may  be  added,  lest  any  person  imagine  that  he  was 
driven  by  an  overpowering  sense  of  the  importance 
of  his  charge,  that  in  the  same  period  he  spent  about 
£2,500,000  and  again  degraded  the  Vatican. 

One  need  not  describe  how  Paul  III.,  brother  of 
Alexander  VI. 's  golden-haired  mistress,  pursued  the 
same  policy  in  meeting  the  Reformers,  but  it  is 
piquant  to  recall  how  the  chief  element  of  the 
Counter-Reformation,  the  Jesuists,  notoriously  con- 
secrated the  same  procedure  of  cunning  and  decep- 
tion. It  is  enough  to  cite  the  amusing  cases  of  Father 
Nicolai  and  Father  de  Nobili.  The  former  not  merely 
penetrated  the  Protestant  defences  of  Sweden  in  the 
guise  of  a  Lutheran  pastor,  but  actually  taught 
Lutheran  theology  in  a  Swedish  seminary.  Ths  latter, 
an  Italian  of  high  birth,  deceived  the  most  rigorous 
Brahamists  of  India  for  years  by  so  thoroughly  adopt- 
ing their  language,  rites,  and  costume  that  he  passed 
for  a  Swami  of  the  most  exclusive  caste  and  of  the 
strictest  Hindu  orthodoxy !  These  eccentricities  of 
virtue  need  not  detain  us,  but  we  must  remember 
that  it  was  men  of  this  diplomatic  school  who  for 
years  guided  the  decisions  of  the  monarchs  of  France, 
Spain,  Portugal,  Naples,  and  Austria. 

The  influence  of  Machiavelli's  Prince  on  the 
development  of  European  politics  is  minute  in  com- 
parison with  this  prolonged  perversion  of  the  very 
shrine  of  European  idealism.  From  the  fifteenth 
century  onward  every  European  Power  had  resident 
agents  at  Rome,  and  their  extant  letters  to  their 
monarchs  generally  reflect  an  amused  admiration  of 
the  corruption  of  the  Papal  court.  It  was  there  that 
statesmen  first  learned  that  every  man  had  his  price. 
There  was  the  greatest  market  of  honours  and  offices 


SOURCES  OF  POLITICAL  CORRUPTION    33 

which  the  world  had  yet  seen.  There  even  crime 
could  purchase  immunity,  and  dishonesty  could 
thrive  more  luxuriantly  than  honesty.  Spain, 
France,  Naples,  the  Empire,  and  the  Italian  princes 
learned  to  meet  duplicity  by  duplicity,  and  their 
statesmen  were  encouraged  in  developing  the  taint 
which  they  would  eventually  share  with  Parliaments. 

England  is  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  examples 
of  the  transmission  of  this  taint  from  the  clerical  to 
the  lay  statesman.  The  plea  one  sometimes  hears, 
that  this  rapid  spread  of  immoral  maxims  was  due 
to  the  renascence  of  pagan  letters,  cannot  seriously 
be  sustained.  The  nepotist  Popes  of  the  fifteenth 
century  were  wholly  ignorant,  and  rigorously 
isolated  from  the  influence  of  the  new  literature. 
Alexander  VI.  knew  no  more  of  the  classics  than  the 
occasional  loose  play  of  Plautus  or  Terence  which 
was  enacted  in  the  Vatican;  and  Leo  X.  had  little 
more  acquaintance  with  them.  Julius  II.  knew 
nothing  of  either  Latin  or  Greek  writers.  The  most 
serious  contribution  of  the  Renaissance  to  the  litera- 
ture of  Europe  was,  in  fact,  not  Plautus  or  Apuleius, 
but  the  grave  idealism  of  Plato  and  Plutarch, 
Epictetus  and  Marcus  Aurelius. 

It  is  therefore  not  the  first  breath  of  the  Renais- 
sance in  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.,  but  the  fact  that 
his  chief  statesman  was  a  Churchman,  to  which  we 
must  look  for  the  first  notable  beginning  of  corrupt 
statecraft  in  England.  Under  the  Tudor  Kings  the 
last  trace  of  Parliamentary  power,  in  its  earlier 
form,  had  been  suppressed,  and  the  only  "poli- 
ticians "  were  the  King's  personal  friends  and 
counsellors.  Modern  history  is  usually  most  severe 
on  the  earliest  records  of  a  nation,  but  the  tradition 
of  a  large  measure  of  democracy  and  comparative 
purity  in  Anglo-Saxon  days  is  not  seriously  chal- 
lenged by  recent  research.  The  Norman  Kings 
endeavoured  to  substitute  their  docile  bishops  and 
c 


84  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

abbots  and  barons  for  the  older  representatives  of 
the  people,  and,  although  they  were  still  often  forced 
to  call  Parliaments,  genuine  representation  fell  into 
decay.  Magna  Charta  was  rather  a  charter  of  the 
barons,  on  whose  rights  the  despotic  monarchs  had 
encroached.  It  is  true  that  Parliaments  can  be 
traced  throughout  the  whole  period,  but  under  the 
Tudor s,  when  the  enfeebled  barons  were  finally 
checked  or  replaced  by  a  new  type  of  court-favourites, 
the  representation  of  the  people  counted  for  little. 
The  right  of  the  householders  of  the  boroughs  to  elect 
representatives  was  still  recognised  in  theory,  and 
often  put  into  practice,  but  the  monarchs  now  neu- 
tralised this  impediment  to  their  autocracy  by  a 
practice  of  manipulating  the  boroughs  which  would 
continue  in  great  freedom  until  the  Civil  War. 

When  the  prolonged  internal  disorder  and  strain 
of  the  French  War  came  to  an  end  under  the  Tudor  s, 
the  use  of  a  Parliament  was  obvious,  but  Henry  VII. 
had  completed  the  despotism  which  foreign  monarchs 
and  their  adventurers  had  opposed  to  Anglo-Saxon 
democracy.  When,  therefore,  under  Henry  VIII., 
England  became  entangled  in  continental  politics,  the 
guidance  of  the  nation  was  left  to  the  King  and  his 
principal  advisers,  and  the  familiar  type  of  corrupt 
statesman  was  evolved  in  this  country.  The  removal 
of  the  great  abbots  and  the  subjection  of  the  bishops 
to  the  State  at  the  Reformation  completed  the  process 
of  royal  autocracy,  and  favoured  the  rise  of  these  new 
types  of  adventurous  politicians. 

Wolsey,  a  churchman  in  name,  but  a  quite  un- 
scrupulous adventurer,  may  be  regarded  as  found- 
ing the  tradition.  He  seems  to  have  been  the  son 
of  a  modest  trader — whether  he  was  a  butcher  or  no 
is  disputed — but  he  was  educated  at  Oxford  and 
became  a  royal  chaplain.  His  astuteness  soon 
caught  the  eye  of  Henry,  and  he  was  frequently 
employed  on  diplomatic  missions.  This  was  at  a 


SOURCES  OF  POLITICAL  CORRUPTION    35 

period  of  the  lowest  depth  of  political  corruption  at 
Rome,  and  the  blunt  Henry  was  dazed  at  first  by 
the  gross  deceitfulness  and  quick  and  secret  changes 
of  policy  of  the  Popes  and  the  monarchs  who  sought 
his  alliance.  France,  Spain,  the  Empire,  and  the 
Vatican,  sharpened  by  twenty  years  of  intrigue  and 
deception,  regarded  the  simple-minded  Englishman 
as  an  easy  dupe.  Wolsey  entered  with  native  zest  into 
the  battle  of  wits  and  quickly  learned  its  laws.  Every 
man  had  a  secret  aim  and  a  price  :  every  treaty  might 
have  a  secret  counter-treaty.  He  coached  his  royal 
master,  and  in  a  few  years  they  rivalled  in  diplomatic 
perfidy  the  most  accomplished  of  French  courtiers 
and  the  most  supple  Italians  of  the  diplomatic  staff 
of  Leo  X.  In  their  dealings  with  France,  which  had 
thought  it  easy  to  outwit  them,  they  laid  a  secure 
foundation  for  the  fame  of  "perfidious  Albion"; 
and  even  Leo  X.,  Wolsey 's  great  ally  and  model, 
found  the  cardinal,  who  aspired  to  replace  him  on  the 
Papal  throne,  a  master  of  the  prevailing  art. 

Wolsey  was  at  length  beaten,  and  compelled  to 
retire,  by  the  Papal  Court;  whose  action  in  the 
matter  of  the  divorce  of  Catherine  of  Aragon  is  now 
plainly  recognised  as  a  piece  of  diplomacy.  But 
Wolsey's  heirs  in  statecraft,  Cranmer  and  More, 
were  not  disposed  to  desert  the  profitable  ways  of 
the  new  politics.  How  Cranmer  bribed  the  universi- 
ties of  Europe  to  express  a  grave  moral  doubt  about 
the  validity  of  Henry's  marriage  is  well  known. 
Some  may  express  surprise  that  Sir  Thomas  More  is 
included  amongst  the  founders  of  our  political  cor- 
ruption. However  enigmatic  More's  character  may 
remain,  it  is  certain  that  as  a  servant  of  Wolsey  and 
the  King  he  readily  took  part  in  their  cozening ;  and 
the  careful  reader  of  the  Utopia  will  know  that  in 
doing  so  he  did  no  violence  to  his  own  principles. 
Unlike  Machiavelli,  More  surveys  the  corrupt  politi- 
cal world  of  his  time  with  disapproval.  It  is,  how- 


86  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

ever,  rather  a  genial  cynicism  than  a  strict  virtue 
that  inspires  his  caustic  observations.  He  thinks, 
not  that  honesty  is,  but  that  honesty  would  be,  the 
best  policy,  if  all  would  practice  it.  Meantime,  one 
has  to  deal  with  knaves,  and  there  must  be  no 
quixotism.  A  statesman,  he  says,  must  not  leave 
a  commonwealth  because  his  high  ideals  cannot  be 
realised.  "  You  must  with  a  crafty  wile  and  subtle 
course  study  and  endeavour  yourself,  as  far  as  in 
you  lies,  to  handle  the  matter  wittily  and  hand- 
somely for  the  purpose ;  and  that  which  you  cannot 
turn  to  good,  so  to  order  that  it  be  not  very  bad." 
More  seems,  however,  to  have  returned  in  age  to  the 
piety  of  his  youth  and  sacrificed  his  life  for  a  prin- 
ciple. He  was  no  democrat.  His  ideal  common- 
wealth is  an  aristocratic  republic,  in  which  most  of 
the  work  is  done  by  slaves.  He  was  not  the  man  to 
give  any  aid  to  the  feeble  efforts  of  Tudor  Parlia- 
ments (in  which  he  had  opposed  the  King  before  he 
received  office)  to  recover  their  ancient  power. 

This  corruption  in  the  central  part  of  such  political 
machinery  as  the  nation  then  possessed  was  in- 
creased by  the  rapidly  growing  wealth  of  the  coun- 
try and  the  large  importation  of  ideas  of  luxury. 
Bribery  and  the  sale  of  offices  took  the  place  of  the 
old  practice  of  rewarding  a  stout  soldier,  a  flattering 
courtier,  or  a  drunken  comrade.  The  distribution 
of  Church-wealth  was  as  corrupt  in  procedure  as  it 
was  useless  from  the  point  of  view  of  national 
economy.  Honestly  and  dishonestly,  princely  for- 
tunes were  made  or  begged,  and  a  score  of  greedy 
adventurers  flocked  to  the  door  of  the  Court  when- 
ever one  man  issued  with  spoil.  The  standard  of 
material  life  rose  as  rapidly  as  the  moral  standard 
deteriorated.  London  was  passing  into  its  Augustan 
Age,  from  the  effects  of  which  only  a  strong  infusion 
of  healthy  provincial  blood  would  redeem  it. 

In  our  day  we  see  plainly  the  double  development 


SOURCES  OF  POLITICAL  CORRUPTION    87 

which  few  then  realised.  London  and  the  great 
houses  which  depended  on  it  encouraged  the  growth 
of  the  corrupt  but  gold-scattering  autocracy  of  the 
Tudor s.  The  provinces,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
producing  in  increasing  numbers  the  men  who  would 
presently  be  known  as  Puritans.  Partly  because 
they  shared  what  small  amount  of  religious  revival 
there  was  in  the  English  Reformation,  partly  from 
the  provincial  hostility  to  metropolitan  corruption 
and  effeminacy,  the  "  country  gentry,"  as  they  would 
come  to  be  called,  developed  a  shade  of  antagonism 
to  the  new  Court.  They  were  found  in  the  Parlia- 
ments which  were  still  summoned,  and  the  Tudor 
tendency  to  ignore  their  rights  more  than  once 
brought  out  their  spirit.  The  new  commerce  was 
greatly  enlarging  the  mercantile  class,  and  the  Port 
of  London  was  by  no  means  the  only  one  to  derive 
advantage  from  the  inflow.  Feudalism  was  receiving 
a  severe  blow,  and  before  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century  a  conflict  between  Court  and  Parliament 
came  within  the  range  of  possibilities. 

It  was  clear  how  such  an  issue  would  be  met.  The 
statesmen  or  servants  of  the  Court  were  now  accus- 
tomed to  meet  almost  every  problem  with  what  they 
regarded  as  diplomatic  methods,  and  they  would  in- 
evitably seek  to  disarm  a  Parliamentary  opposition 
by  bribing  its  weaker  or  corruptible  elements  and 
coercing  or  ignoring  the  remainder.  Political  life  was 
evolving  toward  its  modern  form  and,  from  the  force 
of  circumstances,  developing  also  the  taint  which 
lingers  in  it  to-day.  Kings  and  chancellors  who  had 
found  foreign  courtiers,  prelates,  and  even  scholars, 
open  to  golden  persuasion  would  naturally  assume  that 
the  plain  Commoner  would  be  attracted  by  opening  the 
door  to  him  of  the  luxurious  life  of  the  new  metropolis. 

The  development  was  suspended  for  a  time  by 
a  national  peril  which  dwarfed  domestic  differences. 
The  Catholic  episode  of  the  reign  of  Mary  ended  the 


38  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

long  continental  intrigue  by  a  definite  alliance  with 
Spain.  In  six  years  the  policy  brought  its  inevit- 
able reaction  :  the  establishment  of  Protestantism 
and  a  sturdy  defiance  of  Spain.  All  England  united 
to  meet  the  vindictiveness  and  fanaticism  of  Philip 
of  Spain,  now  the  most  powerful  and  the  wealthiest 
monarch  of  the  world,  and  the  chief  pretext  of 
Parliament,  reluctance  to  find  money,  had  to  be 
temporarily  abandoned.  In  Elizabeth's  earlier  years 
the  Commons  had  given  more  than  one  proof  of  their 
growing  strength.  At  the  close  of  the  session  of 
1566  Speaker  Onslow  had  boldly  reminded  the 
Queen  of  the  limits  of  the  royal  prerogative,  and  in 
1601,  when  the  national  peril  was  past,  a  speaker  in 
the  Commons  had  repeated  the  reminder. 

On  the  whole,  Elizabeth  completed  the  Tudor 
disdain  of  Parliament.  In  one  year  she  rejected  no 
less  than  forty-eight  measures  which  had  passed 
both  Houses,  and  she  sent  more  than  one  insurgent 
member  of  the  Commons  to  the  Tower.  Thirty-six 
boroughs  had  been  added  to  the  electorate  during 
the  reigns  of  her  two  predecessors.  Elizabeth 
created  sixty-two  new  members,  and  took  care, 
generally,  that  the  new  constituencies  were  favour- 
able to  the  pretensions  of  the  Court.  The  decay  of 
the  constituencies,  as  some  of  the  earlier  mediaeval 
towns  crumbled  into  ruin  or  the  franchise  was  cor- 
ruptly restricted,  fostered  the  designs  of  the  Court 
and  courtiers.  The  crown  could  artificially  prolong 
their  voting  strength  and  entrust  it  to  safe  men. 
As  the  Puritans  grew  in  strength,  it  became  neces- 
sary to  sink  deeper  into  corruption  in  order  to  pro- 
vide a  counterpoise  to  their  strength  within  the 
limits  of  the  Constitution.  Bribery  and  venality 
developed  at  equal  pace.  We  have  to  see  how  the 
taint  developed  under  the  Stuarts  in  such  strength 
that  it  lingers  to-day  in  the  political  veins  of  England 
and  of  its  parliamentary  offspring  beyond  the  seas. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE   DEVELOPMENT   OF   STUART   CORRUPTION 

WHAT  we  have  seen  so  far  is  rather  the  preparation 
for,  than  the  beginning  of  British  political  corrup- 
tion. There  were  at  that  time  no  politicians  in  the 
modern  sense  of  the  word;  no  ministers,  and  cer- 
tainly no  cabinet.  In  the  country  were  municipali- 
ties or  corporations  which,  by  ancient  right  or  recent 
charter,  were  empowered  to  send  representatives, 
like  the  counties,  to  Parliament.  Nominally  these 
Parliaments  limited  the  monarch's  power  to  do  as 
he  willed,  especially  in  the  levying  of  funds.  But 
the  crown  had  the  right  to  veto  their  measures,  to 
punish  recalcitrant  members,  and  to  vary  the  con- 
stituencies with  a  view  to  altering  the  complexion 
of  Parliament.  The  Tudors  had  used  these  powers 
to  the  full,  and  Parliamentarians  were  almost  im- 
potent. Not  from  them,  but  from  the  gay  crowd 
at  his  Court,  did  the  practically  autocratic  monarch 
choose  his  advisers;  and  the  favourite  maintained 
his  position  by  impelling  the  monarch  still  further 
to  ignore  the  archaic  and  enfeebled  relic  of  Saxon 
days  which  men  called  Parliament.  The  king  was 
the  politician. 

The  rapid  advance  of  the  nation  under  Elizabeth 
not  only  brought  with  it  the  need  to  create  some 
sort  of  political  machinery,  but  led  to  an  acute  con- 
flict of  ideals  in  regard  to  political  power.  To  Essex 
and  Buckingham  the  doctrine  of  divine  right  com- 
mended itself  as  equally  august  and  profitable. 
The  Reformation  had  been  so  partial  and  imperfect 

39 


40  THE  TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

in  England  that  there  were  plenty  of  divines  ready 
to  construct  a  theological  basis  for  a  doctrine  of 
divine  right,  while  there  were,  until  quite  recent 
years,  none  whatever  to  take  the  side  of  the  people. 
This,  however,  had  little  real  influence  on  the  situa- 
tion. The  vital  issue  was  money.  The  standard  of 
luxury  rose  higher  and  higher,  and  one  of  the  weak- 
nesses of  the  humane  conversion  of  coats  of  mail 
into  silk  doublets  was  that  the  Court  now  swarmed 
with  greedy  adventurers  of  a  new  type.  From  these 
were  drawn  the  advisers  of  the  arch-politician,  the 
king,  and  it  was  their  interest  to  keep  the  country 
in  the  character  of  a  patient  milch-cow.  The  first 
two  Stuarts  failed  in  this  plan  because  they  under- 
rated the  growth  of  Puritanism  and  endeavoured  to 
carry  their  aim  by  bluff  and  force.  The  later 
Stuarts  adopted  the  plan  of  bribery  and  corruption, 
and  made  it  a  normal  feature  of  English  political 
life. 

It  must  seem  to  the  foreign  historian  ironic  that 
the  Englishman,  the  most  stoutly  patriotic  and  self- 
sufficient  of  all  national  types  until  recent  years, 
has  had  one  dynasty  after  another  of  foreign  kings 
to  override  or  pervert  his  native  traditions,  which 
were  amongst  the  best  of  the  Teutonic  family.  The 
Normans  shattered  the  democracy  of  Anglo-Saxon 
life  and  emasculated  Parliament.  The  Scots  tried  to 
reduce  England  to  the  condition  of  France  under 
Louis  XIV.  The  Germans  succeeded  in  neutralis- 
ing the  revived  measure  of  self-government  by 
fostering  a  system  of  parliamentary  corruption 
which  enabled  them  to  combine  nominal  democracy 
with  a  very  real  and  lucrative  autocracy.  The  his- 
tory of  Parliament  throughout  these  changes  is  not 
merely  interesting.  It  is  as  necessary  for  the  under- 
standing of  some  features  of  our  life  to-day  as  a 
knowledge  of  mediaeval  ways  is  for  the  understand- 
ing of  the  red  and  white  pole  that  hangs  outside 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  STUART  CORRUPTION  41 

the  barber's  shop  or  the  painted  blue  lion  outside 
an  inn  on  the  public  road. 

Under  James  I.  the  sober  Puritan  element  in 
Parliament  grew  stronger  and  on  more  than  one 
occasion  asserted  its  power.  James  was  indolent 
and  scholarly,  but  accustomed  from  youth  to  bloody 
reminders  that,  whether  kings  had  divine  rights  or 
no,  their  subjects  had  very  material  weapons.  He 
left  Elizabeth's  ministers,  and  the  host  of  needy 
Scots  he  brought  with  him  and  enriched,  to  gather 
and  protect  their  wealth  as  they  could.  He  shrewdly 
informed  the  Commons  that  he  did  not  require  a 
"  subsidy "  when  the  Court-party  in  the  Lords 
showed  an  intention  of  extorting  on^  from  them; 
and,  when  he  later  pressed  for  a  subsidy,  the  Com- 
mons used  very  plain  language  about  his  needs  and 
his  prerogatives.  Nominal  or  sinecure  offices  were,  in 
fact,  being  multiplied  for  Court-favourites  and  their 
favourites  or  agents,  and  the  temper  of  the  Commons 
rose.  They  impeached  Sir  Giles  Mompesson,  then 
Bacon.  Under  such  leaders  as  Sir  Edward  Coke 
and  Pym,  in  face  of  the  king's  assertion  that  their 
rights  were  granted  by  the  throne  and  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  throne  (a  monstrous  mis-statement), 
they  laid  it  down  that  "  the  liberties,  franchises, 
privileges,  and  jurisdictions  of  Parliament  are  the 
ancient  and  undoubted  birthright  and  inheritance 
of  the  subjects  of  England."  James  could  retort 
only,  in  Tudor  fashion,  by  dissolving  Parliament 
and  imprisoning  its  leaders. 

James  left  the  quarrel  to  his  son,  Charles  I.,  and 
it  is  enough  for  my  purpose,  since  the  corruption  of 
Parliament  itself  comes  later,  to  recall  that  it  ended 
in  the  Civil  War  and  the  supremacy  of  Parliament. 
The  Tudor  and  early  Stuart  way  of  dealing  with  a 
recalcitrant  Parliament  had  failed.  There  was,  of 
course,  already  much  taint  in  the  parliamentary 
system.  There  were  rotten  boroughs  and  bur  gage- 


42  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

voters.  There  were  tied  electors  in  the  country  and 
placemen  in  the  House.  But  the  consistently  and 
sternly  democratic  nature  of  Charles's  Parliaments 
shows  that  this  corruption  was  limited.  The  Long 
Parliament  which  met  in  1640,  twenty-five  years 
after  the  beginning  of  Charles's  attempt  to  win 
autocracy,  is  a  proof  that  the  parliamentary  system 
was  still  sufficiently  sound  to  express  the  deliberate 
will  of  the  literate  minority  of  the  people.  The  real 
and  thorough  corruption  of  the  British  political 
system  begins,  ironic  as  it  may  seem,  after  the 
triumph  of  Parliament  in  the  Civil  War.  Yet  the 
brief  sketch  we  have  seen  of  the  earlier  form  of 
corruption — tl^e  corruptness  of  monarchs  and  their 
advisers — is  by  no  means  irrelevant.  This  was  the 
fount  from  which  the  taint  would  now  pervade  the 
entire  system. 

The  failure  of  the  Commonwealth  is  not  surpris- 
ing. Cromwell  succumbed  to  the  besetting  tempta- 
tions of  political  power,  and  manipulated  elections 
and  Parliaments  as  freely  as  a  Stuart  had  done : 
as  freely  as  Lenin  does  in  modern  Russia  and,  pre- 
sumably, any  other  democratic  leader  would  do. 
The  end  justifies  the  means.  In  the  realisation  of 
that  maxim,  which  no  one  professes,  politicians  are 
as  adept  as  Jesuits.  The  spectacle  of  Oliver  Crom- 
well sitting  in  the  House,  debating  with  the  Lord 
and  his  conscience  whether  he  shall  use  his  three 
hundred  soldiers  to  do  what  he  had  fought  a  Civil 
War  against  kings  for  doing,  is  a  common  political 
situation.  My  ideal,  my  party,  my  personality,  is 
so  important  for  the  country  that  I  may  adopt  with 
moral  immunity  those  methods  which  I  reprobate 
in  my  opponents.  It  is  to-day  the  language  of 
Liberals  in  opposing  Conservatives  :  of  Socialists  in 
opposing  Liberals. 

The  spectacle  of  these  inconsistencies  might  not 
of  itself  have  destroyed  the  new  democracy  of  Eng- 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  STUART  CORRUPTION  43 

land,  but  it  was  reinforced  by  an  utter  and  general 
disgust  of  Puritan  ways.  Merry  England  had  be- 
come too  dreary  a  comedy.  The  autocracy  and 
greed  of  kings  were  lost  in  the  shining  memory  of 
the  gaiety,  license,  prodigality  and  sparkle  of  the 
Stuart  days.  Probably  many  thought  that  they 
could  restore  the  fun  without  restoring  the  auto- 
cracy. Surely  the  Cavaliers  had  realised  in  their 
exile  that  there  was  now  in  England  a  will  of  the 
People  as  well  as  a  will  of  Kings  ?  In  a  burst  of 
pent-up  joy  and  gaiety  the  Stuarts  were  welcomed 
back  to  England;  and  the  next,  and  most  sordid, 
phase  of  English  political  life  began. 

It  was  natural  that  the  new  Parliament  should 
consist  almost  entirely  of  Royalists.  The  country 
was  sick  of  the  austerities,  hypocrisies  and  bilious- 
ness of  the  Roundheads.  It  was  equally  natural  that 
this  Royalist  body  should  prove  subservient  to  the 
Court,  and  that  in  the  intoxication  of  a  general 
return  to  gay  and  free  ways  the  Court  should  regard 
the  Puritan  episode  as  completely  obliterated,  and 
think  only  of  emulating  the  opulent  license  of  Louis 
XIV.,  with  which  it  was  most  pleasurably  familiar. 
There  began  a  new  race  for  wealth  and  luxury, 
madder  and  more  unscrupulous  than  ever.  In  such 
periods  there  is  little  delicacy  about  the  means  of 
acquiring  money.  In  army,  navy,  Church  and 
State-services  the  taint  spread  rapidly,  but,  says 
Macaulay,  the  sober  censor  of  all  this  frivolity, 
"  those  who  made  politics  their  business  were  per- 
haps the  most  corrupt  part  of  this  corrupt  society." 
To  put  it  differently,  politics  now  came  into  exist- 
ence as  a  distinct  and  unsavoury  profession  for  the 
making  of  money.  The  recent  history  of  England 
had  not  tended  to  develop  an  inflexible  sense  of 
principle.  The  famous  window  in  Whitehall  still 
recalled  to  living  memories  the  most  tremendous 
event  in  English  history,  the  execution  of  a  king, 


44  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

yet  there  was  the  king's  son  as  luxuriously  lodged, 
and  almost  as  autocratic  as  his  father  had  been. 
Moreover,  two,  if  not  three  creeds  enfeebled  by  their 
mutual  obloquy  the  standards  of  conduct  in  the 
minds  of  the  less  robust,  while  a  more  or  less 
obscure  Deistic  movement  spread  a  not  very  austere 
scepticism  in  the  minds  of  the  cultured. 

At  this  period  the  necessity  arose  for  the  Court- 
party  to  apply  the  familiar  methods  of  diplomacy 
to  the  domestic  political  system.  The  reaction 
against  Puritan  sourness  went  so  far  that  it  in  turn 
brought  about  a  reaction  toward  Puritanism.  A 
grave  suspicion  that  the  king  leaned  to  Popery 
accentuated  this  feeling,  and  the  successors  of  the 
Roundheads  carried  repeated  bye-elections  and 
strengthened  their  party  in  the  House.  Soon  there 
was  a  "Country  Party  "  with  which  the  frivolous 
Londoners  had  to  count.  It  included,  of  course, 
sober  London  merchants,  but  its  chief  strength  lay 
in  the  country.  The  Earl  of  Clarendon,  the  king's 
most  intimate  counsellor,  was  impeached  (1667)  for 
venality  and  peculation,  and  banished. 

Power  now  passed  to  what  may  be  regarded  as 
the  first  Cabinet  in  English  history,  the  "  Cabal  " 
(Clifford,  Ashley,  Buckingham,  Arlington  and 
Lauderdale),  and  the  work  of  tainting  politics  pro- 
ceeded merrily.  Money  and  places  were  freely  dis- 
tributed among  members  of  Parliament.  Sir 
Thomas  Clifford,  a  secret  Catholic  and  head  of  the 
Government,  was  the  arch-eorruptor.  While  the 
country  was  in  open  and  popular  alliance  with  Pro- 
testant Holland  and  Sweden  against  France,  Clifford 
and  Arlington  (another  Catholic)  assisted  Charles  to 
enter  into  a  secret  treaty  with  Louis,  in  which  the 
French  king  engaged  himself  to  supply  Charles  with 
sufficient  funds  to  be  independent  of  Parliament  and 
sufficient  men  to  crush  a  new  civil  war ;  and  Charles 
promised  to  make  open  profession  of  Catholicism  at 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  STUART  CORRUPTION  45 

the  earliest  convenient  moment.  To  prepare  Parlia- 
ment for  the  disclosure  of  this  disgraceful  piece  of 
Machiavellism,  Clifford  had  liberal  recourse  to 
bribery.  A  seat  in  the  House  began  to  have  a 
peculiar  monetary  value.  A  vote  in  the  constitu- 
ency sympathetically  rose  in  value.  Even  French 
gold  poured  by  these  secret  channels  into  England. 
It  is  material  to  note  that  Clifford  was  not  in  person 
a  venal  or  corrupt  man.  One  understands  the 
temptations  of  the  higher  political  world  better 
when  one  finds  such  men  assuming  with  ease  the 
character  of  corruptors. 

The  sober  elements  of  Parliament  were  still 
strong.  They  shattered  the  Cabal,  impeached  Ar- 
lington and  drove  Clifford  into  obscurity.  But  the 
change  of  politicians  was  infelicitous,  for  the  Earl 
of  Danby,  who  succeeded  Clifford,  was  far  worse 
than  his  predecessor.  Corrupt  and  covetous  him- 
self, he  quickly  seized  upon  the  proved  venality  of 
members  of  Parliament  and  made  it  one  of  the  chief 
means  of  sustaining  his  own  power.  During  his 
long  public  career  he  did  more,  perhaps,  than  any 
other  man  to  deepen  the  taint  in  English  politics; 
though  there  was  hardly  a  high  politicial  personage 
of  the  time  who  did  not  resort  to  such  methods. 
Even  the  chivalrous  and  high-minded  Republican, 
Algernon  Sidney,  was  convicted  of  taking  a  thousand 
guineas  of  French  gold;  and  the  excuse  that  he 
expended  it  in  the  spread  of  his  idealism  only  shows 
the  perversity  of  the  times.  Leaders  of  the  Country 
Party — the  Whigs,  as  they  would  presently  be 
called — were  not  less  open  to  bribery.  Sir  Thomas 
Lee  and  Sir  Thomas  Meres  accepted  thousands  of 
pounds  in  money,  and  lucrative  offices,  on  condition 
that  they  would  use  their  influence  in  their  party  to 
secure  the  grant  of  ample  subsidies  to  the  king. 
There  are  political  historians  who  blame  the  Whigs, 
of  later  reigns,  for  the  adulteration  of  public  life. 


46  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

We  shall  see  that,  in  fact,  the  corruption  reached  its 
lowest  depth  under  Whig  ministers,  but  in  the  reign 
of  Charles  II.,  when  the  taint  so  rapidly  and  fatally 
developed,  it  was  the  Tories  who  corrupted  the 
Whigs  and  educated  them  in  the  value  of  parlia- 
mentary corruption. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  the  distinction  of 
Whig  and  Tory  came  into  use  in  English  literature. 
The  Whigs  were  the  modified  successors  of  the 
Roundheads,  and  the  new  name  was  borrowed  from 
an  epithet  which  was  in  Scotland  applied  with  some 
disdain  to  rural  Presbyterians.  They  were  promin- 
ently characterised  by  a  defence  of  Presbyterianism 
against  the  Episcopalians  and  a  resolution  to  re- 
strict the  claims  of  the  king.  Upon  their  opponents 
they  retorted  with  the  equally  opprobrious  name  of 
Tories,  which  belonged  originally  to  the  wild  mar- 
auders of  Catholic  Ireland.  The  Tories  were  pre- 
sumed to  favour  the  Catholic  leanings  of  Charles 
(though  Danby  and  others  hated  Catholicism),  and 
they  certainly  supported  his  dream  of  luxurious 
autocracy.  But  we  have  already  seen  that  neither 
creed,  nor  party,  nor  even  personality  withstood 
the  taint.  The  Catholic  Clifford  and  Protestant 
Danby  were  equally  generous  in  the  distribution  of 
tainted  money;  the  Deistic  Sidney  and  Presby- 
terian Meres  were  equally  ready  in  acceptance.  In- 
deed, men  now  passed  with  such  ease  from  one  party 
to  the  other  that  even  the  microscopic  eye  of  the 
modern  historian  has  some  difficulty  in  discovering 
their  principles;  while  the  age  had  the  further  dis- 
tinction of  producing  a  professedly  neutral  group 
who  went  by  the  name  of  "  trimmers." 

The  Whigs  now  obtained  an  accession  of  strength 
which  for  a  time  enabled  them  to  threaten  a  new 
civil  war,  but  it  ended  in  further  reaction  and  a 
deeper  corruption  of  the  system.  The  fear  of  Popery 
remained  strong  both  in  the  metropolis  and  the 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  STUART  CORRUPTION  47 

country,  and  a  series  of  plots,  real  or  fictitious, 
raised  the  feeling  against  the  Tories  to  a  white  heat. 
Shaftesbury  transferred  his  services  and  his  ambi- 
tions to  the  popular  side,  and  a  formidable  move- 
ment was  set  afoot.  The  excesses  of  the  Whigs, 
however,  and  the  horror  of  civil  war  brought  a  re- 
action in  favour  of  the  Court,  and  the  king  was 
enabled  to  scatter  his  opponents.  What  interests 
us  in  this  change,  in  1682,  is  that  Charles  was 
directed  by  his  advisers  to  manipulate  the  constitu- 
encies. Charters  were  withdrawn  from  towns  which 
returned  Whigs,  and  small  towns  which  were  re- 
garded as  safe  Tory  seats  were  elevated  to  the  un- 
expected dignity,  and  not  unprofitable  privilege,  of 
sending  members  to  the  Commons.  The  constitu- 
encies were,  as  we  shall  see,  hopelessly  archaic  and 
ludicrous,  but  these  slight  alterations  were  entirely 
corrupt  in  intention. 

The  last  eight  years  of  the  reign  of  Charles  II. 
were,  therefore,  years  of  open  and  unblushing  cor- 
ruption. Offices  were  created  and  sold  with  light- 
hearted  frivolity.  Salaries  of  officers  in  the  service 
of  the  Court  or  in  the  Civil  Service  were  raised  out 
of  all  proportion  to  their  importance  or  the  State's 
resources.  A  groom  of  the  Stole  received  £5000  a 
year  for  the  discharge  of  his  onerous  duties.  A 
group  of  Lords  of  the  Bedchamber  received  each 
£1000  a  year.  Commissions  in  the  Army  and  Navy 
were  issued  without  the  least  regard  to  competence, 
and  contracts  were  a  recognised  source  of  income. 
A  politician  found  at  his  disposal  a  machinery  of 
persuasion  which  few  of  that  age  could  resist,  and 
he  had  no  more  scruple  in  using  it  than  had  the 
most  adventurous  of  the  gay  ladies  who  flaunted  a 
brilliant  finery  in,  or  on  the  fringes  of,  the  two 
Courts.  Parliament  gradually  filled  with  officers  of 
the  army,  the  navy  or  the  excise;  and  the  con- 
sciousness that  their  seats  or  their  commissions  de- 


48  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

pended  entirely  on  the  will  of  the  higher  politicians 
preserved  them  from  any  suspicion  of  Whiggery.  The 
higher  politicians  themselves  created  large  fortunes 
by  the  use  of  their  corrupt  power.  The  dour 
Puritans  were  dead.  The  country  was  docile.  The 
metropolis  was  enchanted. 

Less  than  two  years  after  the  head  of  the  chival- 
rous Sidney  had  fallen,  the  dissolute  monarch  quit- 
ted the  kingdom  he  had  besmirched,  and  his 
Catholic  brother  inherited  and  sustained  the  cor- 
rupt system;  save  that  the  fair  white  hands  which 
had  previously  distributed  pardons  and  offices,  and 
received  commissions,  were  now  replaced  by  the 
anointed  hands  of  priests.  The  practices  continued. 
A  special  kind  of  brokerage  was  evolved  in  London. 
Parliament  was  gaily  likened  to  a  pump,  into  which 
you  introduce  a  little  water  hi  order  to  ensure  the 
outflow  of  a  stream.  At  James's  first  election,  in 
1685,  a  stout,  loyal  majority  had  been  returned. 
The  reformed  constituencies  had  been  carefully  can- 
vassed. Local  clergy  and  officers  who  had  influence 
had  been  effectively  intimidated,  and  had  secured 
the  proper  conduct  of  the  voters.  The  more  coura- 
geous or  more  independent,  who  feared  not  intimi- 
dation, were  seduced  by  the  more  amiable  policy  of 
money  or  place. 

The  narrow-minded  ferocity  of  the  king  soon 
brought  an  end  to  this  reign  of  reaction.  Taking 
a  pretext  from  the  rebellion  of  the  Duke  of  Mon- 
mouth,  he  fell  upon  the  Whigs  with  a  severity  which 
chilled  the  gaiety  of  the  nation.  Women  of  gentle 
birth  were  burned  alive,  and  the  bloody  Jeffreys 
was  created  Chancellor  for  his  grisly  work.  A  reign 
of  terror  opened  for  the  successors  of  the  Puritans; 
while  the  enfeeblement  of  the  kingdom  by  corrupt 
practices  went  so  far  that  even  the  queen  and  her 
ladies  dipped  their  hands  in  the  muddy  stream. 
Happily  for  the  country,  James's  zeal  for  his  Church 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  STUART  CORRUPTION  49 

equalled  his  zeal  for  the  royal  prerogative,  and  the 
country,  still  thoroughly  and  sturdily  Protestant, 
took  alarm.  The  charters  of  enfranchised  towns, 
even  the  qualifications  of  individual  voters,  were 
scrutinised  afresh,  and  from  the  palace  Father  Petre 
directed  an  obvious  campaign  for  preparing  Parlia- 
ment for  the  suppression  of  Protestantism.  In  that 
sacred  cause  no  form  of  bribery  could  be  irregular, 
and  further  improvements  were  made  in  the  elect- 
oral and  parliamentary  machinery  which  the  Whigs 
would  presently  inherit. 

Remembering  still  the  horrors  of  the  Civil  War, 
the  nation  had  tolerated  the  conduct  of  James  im- 
patiently as  long  as  he  was  childless,  and  the  crown 
would  pass  to  his  Protestant  daughter,  Mary.  When 
in  1688  it  was  announced  that  a  son  was  at  length 
born,  and  the  Catholics  openly  rejoiced,  men  of  all 
parties  except  that  of  Father  Petre  turned  toward 
William  of  Orange.  William  astutely  united  the 
various  parties  by  a  protest  that  he  came  only  to 
secure  the  life  of  the  Protestant  religion  and  the 
freedom  of  Parliament,  and  the  whole  nation  rallied 
to  him.  So  feeble  a  remnant  was  left  to  the  last 
of  the  Stuarts  that  William  at  once  mounted  the 
steps  of  the  throne. 

Twice  in  less  than  a  half-century  England  had 
wrought  a  revolution,  ostensibly  in  the  name  of  its 
Parliament.  Yet  that  Parliament,  which  our  child- 
ren are  taught  in  school  to  regard  as  an  unique 
national  institution,  a  monument  of  the  solid  sense 
and  manly  independence  of  our  fathers,  had  sunk 
deeper  than  ever  precisely  during  this  century  of 
Puritanism.  Traditions  had  been  inaugurated,  and 
political  types  had  been  produced  which  would  make 
the  national  machinery  particularly  ineffective  at 
the  time  of  its  greatest  opportunity.  The  agricul- 
tural and  industrial  revolution  would  soon  open. 
The  national  wealth  would  begin  to  rise  $t  a  re- 
P 


50  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

markable  speed.  But  the  central  administration 
would  be  so  corrupt  and  inept,  the  mass  of  the 
people  so  ignorant  and  powerless,  that  the  distri- 
bution of  wealth  would  take  a  form  which  would 
provide  only  bitter  conflicts  for  a  later  generation. 

How  this  degeneration  began  we  have  now  seen. 
In  order  to  restrict  the  inquiry  as  far  as  possible  to 
modern  times  I  have  included  no  study  of  the  origin 
of  Parliament,  and  have  not  attempted  to  trace  the 
comparatively  mild  corruption  of  meliaeval  times. 
It  seems  that  at  least  from  the  fifteenth  century 
onward  the  system  of  representation  lent  itself  to 
improper  practices.  Although  the  office  or  position 
of  representative  was  not  the  lucrative  affair  it  would 
become  after  the  development  of  the  two  great 
political  parties,  we  gather  that  the  representatives 
were  paid,  aparently  by  those  whom  they  repre- 
sented in  London.  In  any  case,  as  we  witness  to- 
day in  municipal  politics,  the  "  honour  "  was  sought 
and  the  persuasion  with  which  it  was  solicited  at 
times  took  the  form  of  silver  or  gold.  As  we  find 
conflicts  with  Parliament  in  every  century,  we  may 
assume  that  there  were,  long  before  the  time  of 
Clifford,  men  who  knew  the  value  of  an  accommo- 
dating attitude.  Political  corruption  is,  as  we  saw, 
as  old  as  politics. 

But  these  relatively  mild  and  infrequent  disorders 
need  not  be  studied  here.  The  taint  which  we  de- 
plore to-day  is  not  merely  this  inevitable  irregu- 
larity of  a  system  in  which  a  man  may  owe  his  place 
to  anything  except  competence,  and  may  lose  it 
in  spite  of  his  competence.  It  is  the  last  phase  of 
a  peculiar  development  of  our  national  life,  and 
this  alone  calls  for  our  consideration.  We  have  seen 
its  earlier  development.  Under  the  Tudors,  when 
Parliament  could  with  impunity  be  ignored  or 
coerced,  the  statesmen  who  administered  the 
country,  through  the  reigning  monarch,  contracted 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  STUART  CORRUPTION  51 

the  very  general  diplomatic  dishonesty  of  their  time. 
The  economic  development  of  the  country  increases 
their  ambition,  since  it  associates  great  wealth  with 
power  and  makes  it  no  longer  necessary  that  the 
aspirant  should  have  a  long  sword  or  a  long  list  of 
ancestors.  But  the  same  development  infuses  a 
measure  of  self-respect  into  the  country,  and  Parlia- 
ment becomes  conscious  of  its  power  once  more. 
From  this  and  the  religious  development  we  get  the 
Civil  War  and  its  sequel,  the  differentiation  of  poli- 
ticians into  two  antagonistic  parties — roughly,  the 
king's  party  and  the  people's  party,  the  Tories  and 
Whigs.  In  the  midst  of  these  changes,  which  en- 
hance the  importance  of  domestic  politics,  states- 
men learn  to  employ  at  home  the  secret  and  un- 
scrupulous arts  which  they  have  so  long  used  in 
cozening  the  foreigner.  We  now  reach  a  point 
where  the  second  revolution  practically  ends  the 
dream  of  a  divine  right  of  British  kings,  where  Whig 
and  Tory  lose  their  original  antagonism  and  become 
little  more  than  rival  groups  of  adventurous  seekers 
of  wealth  and  power.  We  enter  the  great  age  of 
political  corruption. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   "  GOLDEN  "   AGE   OF  POLITICS 

WILLIAM  III.,  the  shrewd  Dutchman  who  came  to 
liberate  the  people  of  England  from  tyranny  and 
remained  to  rule  them  with  the  rod  of  an  autocrat, 
disliked  the  division  of  parties.  He  affected  to 
think  that  the  time  for  such  a  division  had  passed 
with  the  Stuarts,  and  his  ministers — as  the  royal 
counsellors  may  now  be  called — were  chosen  from 
both  sides.  Danby  was  President  of  the  Council, 
and  Nottingham  a  Secretary  of  State.  Both  were 
Tories.  Halifax,  the  "  trimmer,"  was  Lord  Chan- 
cellor. The  Whigs,  however,  had  no  sympathy  with 
the  King's  desire  to  conciliate  the  defeated  Cava- 
liers, and  they  pressed  for  the  utter  rout  of  their 
opponents  and  the  restriction  of  lucrative  offices  to 
their  own  ranks.  Within  a  few  months  the  King  was 
so  disgusted  with  our  politicians  that  he  spoke  of 
returning  to  Holland.  Instead  of  doing  so,  he  dis- 
solved Parliament,  and  the  almost  equally  disgusted 
country  returned  the  Tories  with  a  small  majority. 
Danby,  who  was  now  created  Marquis  of  Car- 
marthen and  First  Minister,  at  once  began  to  give 
some  stability  to  his  insecure  position  by  a  compre- 
hensive and  unblushing  corruption  of  Parliament. 
He  had  studied  in  the  school  of  Clifford,  and  he 
approached  the  new  art  with  a  conscience  entirely 
free  from  the  personal  reluctances  which  Clifford 
had  experienced.  He  gave  the  office  of  Speaker  to 
Sir  John  Trevor,  the  Master  of  the  Rolls  and  a  will- 
ing instrument,  and,  with  the  full  connivance  of  the 

52 


THE   "GOLDEN"   AGE   OF   POLITICS    53 

King,  they  developed  the  appetite  of  members  of 
the  House  by  a  judicious  distribution  of  offices  and 
money.  Bishop  Burnet  tells  us — so  notorious  was 
the  bribery — that  he  himself  politely  expostulated 
to  the  King,  and  was  informed  that  it  was  a  regret- 
table necessity.  French  gold  was  again  circulating 
in  London.  From  his  palace  at  St  Germains  the 
exiled  King  conducted  a  secret  correspondence  with 
malcontents,  and  William's  servants  were  forced  to 
outbid  the  Stuart  for  the  loyalty  of  Englishmen. 
In  both  political  parties  there  were  men  of  the  first 
distinction  who  engaged  in  the  illicit  traffic;  while 
ordinary  members  put  increasing  value  on  their 
support  of  the  King's  measures. 

While  the  dividing  line  of  Whig  and  Tory  was  thus 
blurred  in  the  metropolis,  the  "  Country  Party " 
clung  to  its  traditions  and  tried  repeatedly  to  check 
the  growing  corruption.  In  1691  it  became  a  matter 
of  public  knowledge  that  Lowther  had  accepted 
two  thousand  guineas  from  the  King.  The  "  grumb- 
letonians,"  as  the  advocates  of  purity  were  called, 
made  a  heavy  attack  upon  the  entire  system  of 
sinecures  and  placemen,  and  succeeded  in  passing  a 
resolution.  It  enacted  that  no  person  in  any  civil 
office  should  receive  more  than  £500  a  year.  Yet 
this  meagre  instalment  of  reform,  which  left  thou- 
sands of  comfortable  sinecures  at  the  disposal  of 
ministers,  was  annulled  a  few  weeks  later. 

But  thirty  years  of  this  appalling  corruption,  since 
the  accession  of  Charles  II.,  had  so  thoroughly  en- 
feebled the  public  services  that  alarm  spread  among 
thoughtful  people.  It  is  estimated  that  the  revenue 
of  James  II.  had  reached  two  million  sterling  per 
year,  yet  the  army  and  navy  were  in  so  poor  a  con- 
dition that  the  war,  which  began  with  the  acces- 
sion of  William  III.,  was  attended  with  so  little 
success  and  so  much  scandal  that  the  House  of 
Commons  insisted  on  an  inquiry.  A  judicious  dis- 


54  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

tribution  of  guineas  in  the  House  saved  the  ministers 
from  any  greater  inconvenience  than  a  few  indig- 
nant descriptions  of  the  state  of  the  nation  they 
administered ;  and  the  anger  of  the  reformers  proved 
just  as  impotent  when  they  went  on  to  discuss  the 
condition  of  the  House  itself. 

This  was,  in  1692,  the  first  formal  debate  on 
parliamentary  corruption,  and  we  easily  gather  from 
the  speakers  that  already  the  system  of  representa- 
tion needed  drastic  revision.  Many  boroughs  had 
so  far  lost  the  comparative  importance  which  had  in 
the  early  Middle  Ages  entitled  them  to  representa- 
tives that  their  continuance  as  constituencies  was 
not  merely  an  incentive  to,  but  an  inevitable  occa- 
sion of,  corruption.  The  once  thriving  town  of  Dun- 
wich  dropped  slowly  under  the  waves  of  the  North 
Sea,  but  it  still  returned  two  members.  East  and 
West  Looe,  once  substantial  little  towns  (for  the 
time)  on  the  coast  of  Cornwall,  were  now  decayed 
fishing-villages,  with  only  thirty-three  voters ;  yet 
they  had,  says  Oldfield,  "  as  many  members  as  the 
cities  of  London  and  Westminster  and  the  county 
of  Middlesex,  which  contained  near  a  million  in- 
habitants and  paid  a  sixth  part  of  the  revenue  of 
the  country."*  Old  Sarum,  already  almost  a  de- 
serted ruin  and  a  thing  of  interest  only  to  the  archae- 
ologist, returned  as  many  members  as  the  county  of 
Yorkshire. 

These  "  rotten  boroughs,"  and  the  equal  scandal 
of  the  burgage-votes,  we  will  consider  presently. 
For  the  moment  it  is  enough  to  note  that  the  atti- 
tude of  the  professional  politicians  was  at  once 
moulded  in  a  form  with  which  we  are  familiar  to 
this  day.  There  were  some  in  both  parties  who 
found  the  condition  of  the  country  very  regettable. 
They  conciliated  people  by  a  virtuous  shake  of  the 
head  over  the  rotten  boroughs,  and  they  found  that 
*  The  Representative  History  of  Great  Britain,  III.,  239. 


THE   "  GOLDEN "   AGE   OF   POLITICS    55 

after  such  an  exhibition  of  righteousness  they  could 
escape  with  a  few  murmurs  about  "  practical  diffi- 
culties." A  few  found  the  state  of  things  so  sordid 
that  at  least  stronger  language  was  demanded  of 
them.  "  It  is  notorious,"  said  Earl  Dorset  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  "  that  a  great  number  of  persons 
have  no  other  livelihood  than  by  being  employed  in 
bribing  corporations."  He  referred  to  constituen- 
cies, which  we  will  consider  later,  where  a  dozen  or 
score  municipal  councillors  monopolised  the  right 
of  vote  and  put  a  proportionate  price  on  their  privi- 
lege. Tories  boldly  met  the  reformers  with  praise 
of  our  glorious  Constitution  and  its  superiority  to 
every  foreign  institution.  What  seemed  to  the 
jaundiced  reformer  acts  of  coercion  or  bribery  on 
the  part  of  the  local  magnate  were  to  the  Tory 
"  these  feelings  of  mutual  kindness  which  bound 
together  our  wealthy  gentry  and  their  poorer  neigh- 
bours and  brought  them  into  frequent  and  friendly 
intercourse."  Properly  viewed,  these  relations  were 
"  one  of  the  main  causes  of  the  good  working  of 
our  ancient  constitution  and,  still  more,  of  its  dura- 
tion." So  said  a  distinguished  Tory  writer. 

The  Whigs,  on  the  other  hand,  had  no  advantage 
to  derive  from  reform.  Indeed,  they  already  pro- 
fited by  the  system  themselves,  and  they  cynically 
smothered  the  demand  of  the  small  section  known 
as  "  the  Country  Party."  Since  there  were  now 
plenty  of  men  of  wealth  among  the  Whigs,  they  had 
equal  chance  with  the  Tories  of  purchasing  the  votes 
of  municipal  corporations  and  burgage-holders. 
The  large  towns  of  modern  times — such  as  Man- 
chester and  Birmingham — were  then  still  pleasant 
villages  on  whom  none  thought  of  bestowing  poli- 
tical power.  Reform  would  take  the  shape  of  dis- 
franchising decayed  boroughs  (which  a  Whig  might 
purchase  as  easily  as  a  Tory)  and  enlarging  the 
vote  of  the  counties  (which  were  overwhelmingly 


56  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

Tory).  With  familiar  political  casuistry  they  argued 
that  any  strengthening  of  the  power  of  Toryism 
would  be  so  grave  a  national  danger  that  it  were 
better  to  overlook  a  few  little  irregularities. 

The  "  representation  of  the  people,"  however, 
had  already  become  so  gross  a  tragi-comedy  that 
something  had  to  be  done,  and  the  interests  of 
the  rival  parties  were  so  complicated  that  some- 
thing might  be  attempted.  The  Commons  passed 
a  measure  for  checking  the  number  of  placemen 
in  the  House.  Although  the  Lords  consecrated 
it,  the  Bill  was  still  so  obnoxious  to  the  Court 
Party  that  the  King,  declaring  it  an  encroachment 
on  his  royal  prerogative,  refused  to  sign  it,  and  the 
Commons  yielded.  The  reformers  in  the  Lords  then 
took  up  the  work,  and  they  passed  a  measure  re- 
stricting the  duration  of  Parliament  to  three  years. 
The  prospect  of  having  to  renew  their  illicit  expen- 
diture on  elections  every  three  years  was  naturally 
distasteful  to  the  members  of  the  Lower  House,  and, 
with  an  anxious  eye  on  the  grumbling  country,  they 
opposed,  and,  when  the  King  also  declared  against 
it,  rejected  the  measure.  It  was  some  years  before 
it  became  law. 

In  1693  the  Whigs  returned  to  power,  and  the 
twenty  years  during  which  these  successors  of  the 
Puritans  retained  it  form  the  most  scandalous  part 
of  the  record  of  the  corruption  of  England's  politi- 
cal life.  The  original  division  of  the  two  parties  had 
been  almost  lost  in  confusion.  The  genuine,  enthusi- 
astic Tory  was  now  generally  dis-loyal ;  for  he  looked 
daily  to  the  "  King  over  the  water,"  and  regarded 
William  as  an  unhallowed  human  creation,  a  usur- 
per. At  the  best,  the  Tory  party  was  distracted, 
while  the  Whigs  gathered  strength.  Sunderland, 
who  now  formed  a  ministry— the  first  group  of  poli- 
ticians to  go  by  that  name  in  English  history — had 
advised  the  King  to  lean  on  the  Whigs,  and  the  art 


THE   "  GOLDEN "   AGE   OF   POLITICS    57 

of  persuasion  by  bribe  was  more  assiduously  culti- 
vated than  ever.  Sunderland  himself  had  few 
scruples  while  of  his  colleagues  Lord  Wharton  is 
described  by  Swift  as  "  the  most  universal  villain 
I  ever  knew,"  and  Lord  Somers  as  "  a  man  possess- 
ing every  excellent  qualification  except  virtue." 
The  national  life  of  the  country  was  passing  through 
two  centuries  of  corrupt  politicians  from  which  it 
has  not  yet  recovered.  The  "  game  "  of  politics 
was  entering  its  golden  age. 

Two  years  later,  in  spite  of  every  corrupt  device 
for  censuring  the  docility  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, the  abominable  condition  of  parliamentary 
life  was  starkly  exposed.  It  was  found  in  the  course 
of  an  inquiry  that  the  Member  for  Heydon  and  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  Mr  H,  Guy,  had  accepted  a 
bribe  of  two  hundred  guineas  As  he  was  a  Tory,  the 
Whigs  virtuously  sent  him  to  the  Tower  for  such 
an  outrage  on  the  purity  of  English  political  life. 
The  case,  however,  as  is  not  unusual,  drew  out  a 
series  of  fresh  charges  and  demands  of  inquiry. 

There  was,  of  course,  no  press  in  those  days,  or 
even,  owing  to  the  mediaeval  poorness  of  transport, 
a  national  public  opinion.  London  and  Westminster 
alone  could  be  roused  by  their  pamphleteers  to 
exert  a  collective  pressure  on  the  politicians;  and 
it  must  be  admitted  that  the  writers  themselves 
were  generally  as  corrupt  and  venal  as  the  politi- 
cians. In  any  case,  scandal  was  the  precious  metal 
of  their  trade,  an.d  the  cry  for  a  bold  and  compre- 
hensive inquiry  became  louder  and  louder.  It  is 
said  by  writers  of  the  time  that  a  shudder  of  ghastly 
apprehension  passed  over  Westminster  as  if  the 
plague  had  broken  out  afresh.  No  man  was  safe, 
and  none  knew  if  the  neighbour  he  met  bore  the 
taint.  It  was,  in  particular,  stubbornly  repeated  that 
the  East  India  Company  and  the  City  of  London 
had  spent  large  sums  in  corrupting  members  of  the 


58  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

House  of  Commons.  Lord  Wharton  was  forced  to 
take  up  the  challenge  and  permit  a  general  inquiry. 
He  may  have  trusted  to  the  customary  art  to  evade 
disclosures,  but  the  facts  were  so  gross  and  notorious 
that  they  soon  compelled  recognition. 

Within  a  few  days  it  was  proved  that  Sir  John 
Trevor,  the  Tory  Speaker  of  the  House  whom  Danby 
had  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  corrupting  it,  had 
taken  bribes.  His  salary  was  £4000  a  year,  and  it 
was  estimated  that  he  had  used  his  position  to  make 
a  further  £10,000  a  year.  On  the  specific  charge 
that  he  had  accepted  a  thousand  guineas  from  the 
City  of  London  to  smooth  the  way  through  Parlia- 
ment for  one  of  its  measures  he  was  convicted  and 
dismissed.  The  accounts  of  the  East  India  Com- 
pany were  next  examined,  and  the  result  confirmed 
every  picturesque  rumour  that  had  circulated  in  the 
clubs.  The  Company  had  secured  its  very  profit- 
able monopoly  by  spending  enormous  sums  in 
bribing  the  Court  and  the  House.  For  decades 
sums  of  money,  as  well  as  jewellery,  silks,  and  stones 
of  the  Indies,  etc.,  had  been  systematically  distri- 
buted in  order  to  secure  influence  at  Court  or  in 
Parliament,  and  none  was  so  high  in  either  world 
as  to  have  refused  the  taint.  The  Commissioner  of 
the  Treasury,  Sir  Edward  Seymour,  had  long  been 
a  butt  of  the  wits  for  a  rumoured  deal  in  what  they 
called  "  Saltpetre's  Pence."  It  was  proved  that  he 
had,  through  an  agent,  received  £10,000  in  connec- 
tion with  a  fraudulent  contract  for  saltpetre;  yet 
he  suffered  no  penalty. 

Danby  himself,  who  had  risen  from  the  dignity  of 
Marquis  of  Carmarthen  to  that  of  Duke  of  Leeds, 
and  -had  accumulated  a  large  fortune,  was  definitely 
proved  to  have  received  5,500  guineas,  and  was 
clearly  shown  to  have  received  more.  He  escaped 
under  a  cloud  of  vague  assurances  and  genial 
jaillery.  He  unblushingly,  merrily,  told  the  House 


THE   "GOLDEN"1   AGE   OF   POLITICS    59 

of  Lords  that,  when  he  was  Treasurer  under  Charles 
II.,  there  were  a  number  of  bidders  for  the  farming 
of  the  excise.  Lord  Halifax  had  instructed  him  to 
tell  each  of  them  that  Halifax  had  secured  the  con- 
tract for  him,  and  had  thus  got  an  illicit  commission 
from  each  bidder  !  The  House  of  Lords  felt  that 
the  contemporary  irregularity  was  small  in  compari- 
son with  this,  and  the  Duke  of  Leeds  escaped.  Only 
one  man,  a  servant,  could  definitely  prove  his  guilt, 
and  the  Court  connived  at  the  flight  from  the  country 
of  this  man.  A  strict  prosecution  of  the  inquiry 
would  have  been  awkward  for  the  Court.  It  was 
said  that  £10,000  of  East  India  gold  could  be  traced 
to  the  King  himself. 

The  Grumbletonians  renewed  their  pressure,  and 
Sunderland  was  compelled  to  bribe  more  freely  than 
ever  in  order  to  cheat  the  rising  hostility  of  Parlia- 
ment. A  new  Parliament,  largely  bent  on  reform, 
had  been  returned  at  the  end  of  1698.  It  cut  down 
the  army,  in  spite  of  the  King's  positive  orders,  and 
passed  a  Bill  for  the  forfeiture  to  the  State  of  the 
immense  property  the  King  had  bestowed  on  his 
Dutch  friends  and  his  notorious  mistress.  The 
temper  of  the  Commons  was  so  stern,  in  spite  of  all 
the  known  meaus  of  persuasion,  that  the  King  was 
forced  to  assent. 

The  reign  of  Anne  (1702-1714)  thus  opened  with 
some  promise  of  a  return  to  purer  traditions,  but 
the  action  of  the  Queen  in  placing  almost  all  the  high 
offices  in  the  hands  of  Tories  soon  restored  the  party- 
game  with  all  its  irregularities.  Power  passed 
alternately  to  Tories  and  Whigs  every  few  years, 
and  the  most  shameless  efforts  were  made  to  de- 
bauch the  constituencies  in  favour  of  one  or  the 
other  ambition.  Governed  entirely  by  the  Marl- 
borough's,  Anne  gave  the  supreme  position  to  Lord 
Godolphin,  whose  son  had  married  Marlborough's 
eldest  daughter,  and  two  groups  of  antagonistic 


60  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

families,  with  little  to  choose  between  them  either 
in  policy  or  procedure,  struggled  for  what  were  now 
literally  spoils  of  office,  while  the  war  against  France 
and  Spain  dragged  out  its  inglorious  length. 

The  inevitable  recurrence  of  scandal  happened  in 
1712.  The  Duke  of  Marlborough  was  publicly 
credited  with  having  made  half  a  million  sterling  by 
illicit  commissions  during  the  war,  and  the  House 
of  Commons  definitely  censured  him  for  levying 
large  commissions  on  the  pay  of  foreign  troops  in 
the  English  service.  His  guilt  is  unquestionable, 
but,  like  so  many  other  gold-laced  offenders  before 
and  since,  he  escaped  punishment.  Marlborough 
and  his  wife  had  between  them  drawn  salaries  to  the 
total  amount  of  £65,000  a  year,  yet  such  was  the 
greed  and  indelicacy  of  the  age  that  they  had  added 
hundreds  of  thousands  to  this  by  corrupt  means. 
His  secretary,  Cardonnel,  was,  however,  expelled 
from  the  House  of  Commons,  and  Sir  Robert  Wai- 
pole,  Secretary  for  War  and  leader  of  the  House 
under  Godolphin,  was  committed  to  the  Tower  for 
receiving  a  thousand  guineas  on  a  contract  for 
forage. 

It  is,  perhaps,  the  most  striking  commentary  on 
the  corruption  of  the  times  that  within  two  years 
of  his  release  from  the  Tower,  Walpole  was  again 
the  leader  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  one  of  the 
first  statesmen  of  the  country.  Walpole,  is,  indeed, 
one  of  the  most  significant  and  interesting  figures  in 
the  political  life  of  the  age.  Sprung  from  the  coun- 
try gentry,  educated  at  Cambridge,  he  entered  Par- 
liament by  means  of  one  of  his  own  "  pocket- 
boroughs,"  and  soon  proved  the  most  expert 
"  manager  "  of  the  House.  His  method  of  manage- 
ment consisted  largely  in  the  development  of  the 
existing  system  of  bribery.  Walpole  was  one  of 
those  who  adopted  the  more  frivolous  version  of  the 
growing  scepticism  of  the  time.  Blunt,  shrewd, 


THE   "GOLDEN"    AGE   OF   POLITICS    61 

and  entirely  devoid  of  moral  prejudices,  he  applied 
himself  to  the  task  of  the  hour  by  the  easiest  means, 
whatever  their  ethical  complexion.  He  sneered  at 
Church-practices,  yet  amiably  sanctioned  them.  He 
outran  the  scepticism  of  Locke,  but  shuddered  at  his 
austerity.  One  must  not,  however,  imagine  that  his 
dissociation  from  the  Church  of  England  was  the 
prime  cause  of  deepening  the  taint  in  English  poli- 
tics, for  the  Church  was  exceedingly  corrupt.  It  is 
his  son,  Horace  Walpole,  who  gives  us  a  piquant 
illustration  of  the  situation.  Toward  the  close  of 
his  life  Sir  Robert  gave  the  Bishop  of  Chester  a 
living  worth  .£700  a  year  to  marry  one  of  his  natural 
daughters.  Sir  Robert,  unfortunately,  died  soon 
afterwards;  and  the  right  reverend  prelate  retained 
the  living  and  declined  to  marry  the  ambiguous 
lady.  In  London  there  were  bishops  of  the  time 
who  had  their  mistresses  at  table. 

Such  was  the  man  whom  one  may  almost  call  the 
father  of  English  modern  politics ;  and  the  majority 
of  his  rivals  and  contemporaries  were  only  less 
skilful  in  playing  the  game.  At  the  accession  of 
George  I.  (1714)  Marlborough  was  re -instated  in 
office,  the  veteran  cynic,  Lord  Wharton,  became 
privy  seal,  General  Stanhope  was  second  Secretary 
of  State,  and  Pulteney  Secretary  of  War — a  pro- 
mising initiation  of  the  Hanoverian  phase  of 
England's  national  life.  Walpole  was  in  congenial 
company,  and  one  of  their  first  acts  was  to  repeal 
the  Triennial  Law  and  extend  the  life  of  Parliament 
to  seven  years.  It  is  amusing  to  read  that  one  of 
the  reasons  alleged  for  the  change  was  the  sordid 
bribery  practised  at  elections.  "  Perhaps  it  will  be 
best,"  Lady  Mary  Montagu  wrote  to  her  husband 
in  1714,  when  he  wished  to  enter  Parliament,  "  to 
deposit  a  certain  sum  in  some  friend's  hands  and 
buy  some  little  Cornish  borough."  It  now  suited 
the  leading  politicians  to  perceive  the  prevalence  of 


62  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

bribery,  and  the  political  state  of  England  was  grace- 
fully lamented.  The  boroughs  and  voters  naturally 
resented  this  material  restriction  of  the  stream  of 
gold  to  the  country.  A  vote  was  then,  perhaps, 
not  worth  more  than  a  score  of  guineas — we  shall 
see  it  rise  presently — but  to  a  small  provincial  trader 
in  those  days  twenty  guineas  was  a  respectable  sum, 
and  hundreds  of  petitions  against  the  change  were 
sent  up  to  Parliament.  In  the  purest  language  of 
political  ethics  these  petitions  deplored  the  weaken- 
ing of  their  control  of  their  representatives.  The 
politicians  were  familiar  with  the  dialect.  They  so 
contrived  that  only  ten  of  these  petitions  were  pre- 
sented in  the  House.  Two  hundred  others,  which 
"  arrived  too  late,"  were  burned  at  the  Post  Office 
— after  the  passing  of  the  Septennial  Bill ! 

Once  more  a  grave  scandal  fell  upon  this  com- 
placent and  corrupt  world.  At  the  bursting  of  the 
South  Sea  Bubble  in  1720  another  batch  of  dis- 
tinguished politicians  were  dragged  into  the  light, 
For  years  the  public  had  been  encouraged  in  the 
most  reckless  gambling,  and  swindlers  had  thriven 
as  never  before.  One  had  only  to  announce  a  scheme 
to  extract  iron  from  coal  or  oil  from  sunflowers,  or 
even  a  mechanism  of  perpetual  motion,  and  London 
flocked  to  the  tables  which  overflowed  on  to  the 
streets  of  the  City.  The  books  of  the  South  Sea 
Company  were  brought  to  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  it  was  found  that  the  most  lavish  corruption 
had  been  employed  in  securing  its  foundation. 

From  the  beggared  tens  of  thousands  came  so 
frantic  a  demand  for  vengeance  that  Parliament  was 
compelled  to  proceed  honestly.  The  Earl  of  Sunder- 
land  had  accepted  £50,000  in  shares.  Aislabie,  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  had  by  bribes  and 
speculation  acquired  a  fortune  of  £794,000.  Walpole 
succeeded  Aislabie,  and  he  adroitly  saved  the  Earl  of 
Sunderland  from  punishment.  Stanhope,  the  Premier, 


THE   "  GOLDEN )!    AGE   OF   POLITICS    63 

was  accused,  and  justly  accused,  of  having  received 
£10,000 ;  but  in  the  heat  of  his  defence  in  the  House 
he  fell  in  a  fit  of  apoplexy,  which  at  once  proved 
fatal.  An  appalling  cloud,  in  whose  shadow  the 
faces  of  politicians  were  livid,  brooded  over  "  the 
mother  of  Parliaments."  The  Postmaster-General, 
Craggs,  a  friend  of  Sunderland,  was  shown  to  have 
received  £40,000  and  to  have  been  the  chief  inter- 
mediary of  the  corruption.  He  was  ruined  and 
driven  to  death.  His  son,  a  Secretary  of  State  and 
the  accepted  lover  of  one  of  George  I.'s  mistresses, 
had  shared  the  fatal  gifts.  Peeresses,  Members  of 
Parliament,  courtiers,  civil  servants — hundreds  of 
the  beruffled  and  beribboned  gentry  of  the  metro- 
polis were  proved  to  have  opened  their  pockets  to 
the  tainted  stream  of  half  a  million  sterling  of  gold ; 
and  death — for  even  Sunderland  did  not  survive 
the  storm — was  almost  the  only  refuge  from  the 
infuriated  crowds  of  their  victims. 

So  inveterate,  however,  was  the  corruption  of  the 
age  that  within  a  few  years  scandals  again  arose. 
In  the  year  1725  Walpole,  who  led  the  House  at  this 
period,  persuaded  the  King  to  restore  the  Order  of 
the  Bath,  on  the  genial  ground  that  it  would  form 
for  him  "  an  artful  bank  of  thirty-six  ribands  to 
supply  a  fund  of  favours."  In  the  same  year  Wal- 
pole grossly  bribed  the  Scottish  members,  who 
visited  London,  and  got  their  consent  to  the  increase 
of  the  tax  on  ale  in  Scotland.  In  the  same  year 
the  Lord  Chancellor,  the  Earl  of  Macclesfield,  was 
fined  £30,000,  and  removed  from  office,  for  pecula- 
tion. 

George  II.,  at  his  accession  in  1727,  retained 
Walpole  in  office,  and  that  astute  politician  con- 
trived by  a  system  of  bribery,  in  the  House  and  the 
constituencies,  to  hold  power  for  the  next  fifteen 
years,  with  little  interruption.  He  spent  £5,000  a 
year  on  the  employment  of  literary  men  and  journa- 


64  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

lists  to  defend  his  government.  He  managed  the 
House  of  Commons  by  what  the  conscientious  Hume 
calls  "  unscrupulous  bribery,"  as  well  as  tactical 
ability.  He  doubled  the  Secret  Service  Fund,  and 
influenced  elections  by  every  means  at  his  disposal. 
"  Every  man  has  his  price  "  is  a  saying  first  attri- 
buted to  Walpole;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  he 
expressed  that  sentiment  in  slightly  different  words, 
and  proceeded  on  it  habitually.  His  sons  had 
sinecures  which  yielded  £14,000  a  year.  His 
ability,  his  services  to  the  country  in  many  ways, 
are  unquestioned ;  yet  one  realises  how  familiar 
corruption  was  to  his  age  when  one  finds  Burke 
making  excuses  for  him,  and  Johnson  describing 
him  as  "  the  best  minister  we  ever  had." 

There  are,  however,  historians  who  maintain  that 
English  political  corruption  reached  its  lowest  depth, 
not  under  Walpole,  but  under  his  successor  in 
power,  Henry  Pelham.  In  1740  the  Duke  of  New- 
castle— himself  "  the  greatest  borough-monger  in 
England  " — began  a  fierce  campaign  against  Wal- 
pole. In  1742  Walpole  fell,  over  proved  irregulari- 
ties at  elections,  and  the  not  unfamiliar  inquiry  set 
up  by  his  enemies  ended  hi  the  not  unfamiliar 
acquittal.  Pelham  became  Premier,  and  it  is 
enough  to  quote  the  sober  authority  of  the 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography — an  indulgent 
martyrology  of  our  political  saints — that,  though  not 
personally  covetous,  "  he  chiefly  maintained  his  in- 
fluence in  Parliament  by  an  elaborate  system  of 
corruption,"  or,  as  Hunt  and  Poole  say  in  their 
Political  History  of  England,  by  a  "  lavish  distri- 
bution of  the  spoils  of  office." 

The  Duke  of  Newcastle,  the  expert  borough- 
monger,  succeeded  Pelham  in  power  in  1754,  and 
Horace  Walpole  tells  us  that  in  that  year  the  bribery 
at  the  election  surpassed  all  records.  It  may  have 
risen  above  the  previous  record,  but  there  was  now 


THE   "GOLDEN"   AGE   OF   POLITICS    65 

at  work  a  new  influence  which,  while  it  perhaps 
tempered  the  evil  in  the  House  itself,  or  prepared 
the  way  of  reform,  was  rapidly  deepening  the  cor- 
ruption in  the  constituencies.  The  election  of  1761 
was  worse  than  the  election  of  1754.  The  election 
of  1768  was  still  worse.  The  greed  of  the  voters 
themselves  was  growing  at  an  alarming  pace.  When 
Lord  Chesterfield  offered  £2,500  to  purchase  a  seat 
for  his  son — possibly  one  with  only  a  few  score 
voters — the  brokers  laughingly  replied  that  the  price 
now  ranged  from  three  to  five  thousand  pounds. 
Selwyn  sold  the  two  seats  at  Ludgershall  for  .£9,000. 
The  City  of  Oxford  offered  to  renew  the  parliament- 
ary tenure  of  its  two  sitting  members  if  they  would 
pay  its  debts,  which  amounted  to  £5,670.  Outraged 
by  the  profiteering,  they  made  a  complaint  to  the 
House,  and  ten  of  the  leading  citizens  of  Oxford 
were  summoned  to  London  and  lodged  in  Newgate; 
and  in  Newgate,  to  the  delight  of  London,  they  sold 
the  seats  to  two  other  men.  The  price  of  a  single 
vote  was  in  places  now  as  much  as  fifty  guineas. 

It  was  the  work  of  "  the  Nabobs."  Any  person 
who  moved  in  parliamentary  circles  in  the  seventh 
decade  of  the  eighteenth  century  heard  on  all  sides 
the  most  violent  and  virtuous  denunciation  of  the 
corrupting  influence  of  these  Nabobs.  They  were, 
of  course,  the  nouveaux  riches  of  the  period;  men, 
generally,  who  had  amassed  wealth  in  the  Indies  or 
the  Indian  trade.  The  East  India  Company  had 
unlocked  the  sluices,  and  tens  of  millions  of  gold 
and  precious  things  were  flowing  into  England.  A 
seat  in  the  House  became  a  popular  ambition  of  the 
merchants,  and  the  constituencies  freshened  like  a 
bed  of  flowers  under  a  beneficent  shower  in  July. 
In  places  where,  as  we  shall  see,  a  dozen  or  a  score 
of  men  monopolised  the  voting,  the  franchise  was  a 
property  of  enormous  value;  and  the  defrauded 
householders  now  began  to  struggle  with  the  cor- 

E 


66  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

porations  for  their  political  rights  and  their  legiti- 
mate emoluments.  Where  a  few  sticks  or  stones, 
or  a  few  square  yards  of  ground,  represented  some 
ancient  place  with  a  right  to  return  two  members, 
the  venerable  relics  assumed  such  value  as  if  they 
were  authentic  fragments  of  Noah's  Ark  or  Nero's 
Golden  House.  A  new  blight  had  descended  upon 
England's  glorious  and  unparalleled  parliamentary 
system. 

It  was  the  darkest  hour.  The  first  glimmer  of 
reform  was  faintly  relieving  the  edge  of  the  political 
horizon.  What  the  causes  of  the  reform-movement 
were,  we  will  consider  in  the  next  chapter;  but  we 
may  at  once  put  ourselves  on  our  guard  against  the 
theory  that  it  was  due  to  the  rise  of  a  more  honest 
generation  of  politicians.  Fox,  who  now  appeared, 
was  an  entirely  willing  element  in  the  corrupt  system 
of  the  time.  The  elder  Pitt  had  been  in  Parliament 
since  1735.  He  had  entered  it  by  one  of  the  rottenest 
of  the  rotten  boroughs  of  England,  Old  Sarum,  and 
had  during  thirty  years  never  hinted  at  its  corrup- 
tion. In  1754  he  began  to  represent  one  of  the  Duke 
of  Newcastle's  proprietary  boroughs.  Neither 
statesman,  nor  any  other,  said  a  word  against  the 
completely  degraded  political  system  until  the  here- 
ditary cliques  of  politicians  and  their  dependents 
were  threatened  by  a  more  or  less  independent  body 
of  wealthy  merchants  who  were  able  to  outbid  them. 
A  vote  at  ten  or  twenty  guineas  had  been  an  inno- 
cent detail  of  a  providential  system.  A  vote  at 
fifty  guineas  was  a  sure  sign  of  the  growth  of  pagan- 
ism; it  strained  the  resources  of  the  London 
organisers  and  exposed  the  lord  of  the  manor  to  a 
ruinous  competition  in  his  own  preserve. 

There  were,  however,  several  other  circumstances 
] which  favoured  a  struggle  for  reform  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  to  this 
struggle  we  will  devote  a  chapter.  The  language 


THE   "  GOLDEN "   AGE   OF  POLITICS    67 

with  which  Conservative  politicians,  both  Whig  and 
Tory,  tried  to  avert  the  reform  is  of  enduring  in- 
terest. It  is  no  less  related  to  the  language  of  our 
day  than  the  corruption  itself  is  related  to  the 
irregularities  which  still  linger.  The  apology  has, 
like  the  taint,  sustained  a  natural  evolution  in  the 
struggle  for  life.  But  we  are  chiefly  concerned  with 
the  taint  itself,  and  we  have  now  seen  its  full 
development  in  English  political  life. 

It  had  two  sources.  One  is  the  inherent  mis- 
chievousness  of  open  voting.  A  free  and  independ- 
ent Englishman  may  boast  that  he  will  cast  his  vote 
openly  in  the  sight  of  men  and  angels,  but  such 
heroism  would  not  be  without  danger  now,  and  was 
quite  impossible  in  mediaeval  conditions.  The 
courageous  few  were  soon  suppressed  by  lords  who 
owned  their  houses  and  controlled  their  employ- 
ment, and  their  homes  and  places  were  quickly 
taken  by  the  venal  or  the  sycophantic.  The  con- 
stituencies ripened  to  rottenness  as  soon  as  the  period 
of  semi-barbarism  was  replaced  by  one  of  domestic 
peace  and  larger  national  life.  The  decay  of  older 
towns  into  political  fictions  added  to  the  corruption. 
Meantime,  the  politicians  themselves  were  develop- 
ing a  separate  taint,  which  we  have  traced,  and, 
when  Parliament  again  became  an  institution  of 
real  strength  in  the  national  life,  they  turned  upon 
it  the  practised  methods  of  foreign  diplomacy.  The 
Civil  War  which  intensified  the  strength  of  Parlia- 
ment merely  added  to  its  corruption.  Frontal 
attacks  by  the  Court-party  became  impossible.  The 
work — the  fight  against  the  will  of  such  of  the  people 
as  remained  honest — was  entrusted  to  the  political 
sappers  and  miners.  Members  were  corrupted,  and 
voters  were  corrupted  to  return  corrupt  members. 
We  pass  to  the  next  phase,  the  struggle  to  find  a 
way  out  of  Serbonian  bog. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  FIGHT  FOR  REFORM 

IT  will  be  convenient  and  instructive  to  insert  here 
a  sketch  of  the  political  system  which  we  have 
hitherto  considered  only  in  the  partial  glimpses 
afforded  by  an  occasional  page  from  the  record  of 
its  history.  It  is  a  truism  of  our  tune  that  nothing 
can  be  understood  apart  from  its  evolution.  An 
institution  may  draw  its  sustenance  for  the  day  from 
the  age  in  which  it  lives,  but  its  form  is  determined 
for  the  most  part  by  extinct  forces.  Theoretically, 
we  moderns,  with  our  strong  sense  of  mastery  and 
creativeness,  make  our  own  institutions.  In  prac- 
tice we  do  not.  "  Great  is  the  power  of  the  actual  " 
is  as  true  to-day  as  when  Carlyle  wrote  it.  Modifica- 
tion, not  creation,  is  our  practical  motto.  The  past 
still  dominates  us. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  impatient  and  sensitive 
person  who  urges  us  to  leave  undisturbed  in  the 
cemetery  of  history  the  past  misdeeds  of  Church  or 
State  has  a  mistaken  idea  of  charity.  If  the  mis- 
deeds or  irregularities  of  to-day  are  entirely  dissoci- 
ated from  their  historical  past,  one  can  only  com- 
pare them  with  the  finer  ideals  of  our  time  and  the 
more  bitterly  resent  them.  One  feels  that  the  men 
who  can  do  and  say  such  things  in  an  age  when 
honour  and  truthfulness  are  on  the  lips  of  all  are 
moral  perverts.  Their  position  becomes  much  more 
intelligible  when  one  realises  that  the  system  which 
to-day  enmeshes  them  with  its  irresistible  tempta- 
tions is  only  the  modified  form  of  a  system  which 

68 


THE   FIGHT   FOR   REFORM  69 

owes  its  corruptness  to  a  morally  inferior  age.  In- 
deed, it  is  precisely  because  so  many  refuse  to  believe 
that  distinguished  or  responsible  men  of  the  twentieth 
century  can  lie  or  cozen  or  bribe  that  they  are  blind 
to  the  irregularities  which  are  daily  exposed;  while 
extreme  critics,  equally  unmindful  of  the  past,  dress 
up  our  politicians  in  a  melodramatic  wickedness 
which  defeats  its  own  purpose.  We  avoid  both  ex- 
tremes, and  approach  our  business  with  more  hope, 
if  we  know  the  evolution  of  English  politics  and 
politicians.  Less  than  a  hundred  years  ago  our 
political  system  was  corrupt,  inept,  false,  and 
fraudulent  to  a  degree  that  is  now  almost  un- 
imaginable. 

The  time  I  have  reached  in  this  preliminary 
historical  sketch  was  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago. 
In  the  fifty  succeeding  years — or,  at  least,  the  first 
half  of  that  period — some  important  reforms  were 
carried.  As  late  as  1830,  we  shall  see,  the  parlia- 
mentary system  was  a  criminal  sham.  The  parlia- 
mentary system  of  to-day  as  described  by,  let  us 
say,  Mr  Belloc  or  Mr  Smillie,  has  the  chaste  manners 
of  a  mothers'  meeting  in  a  Baptist  chapel  in  com- 
parison with  the  system  of  ninety  years  ago.  Yet 
this  was  an  improvement  upon  the  political  system 
over  which  the  elder  Pitt  and  Fox  gracefully  pre- 
sided, and  which  evoked  the  applause,  and  would 
have  drawn  the  defensive  swords,  of  all  the  gentle- 
men of  England. 

It  may  or  may  not  be  useful  to  tell  our  children 
in  school  that  our  fathers  set  up,  and  for  centuries 
held  up  to  the  admiration  and  envy  of  the  world, 
a  model  political  institution.  Some  of  us  are  reluc- 
tant to  tell  lies  even  to  children.  But  the  adult 
Englishman,  at  least,  ought  to  know  that  his  parlia- 
mentary institution  had  become,  by  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  an  appalling  mass  of  corruption. 
Whether  Walpole,  or  Pelham,  or  Pitt  really  ad- 


70  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

ministered  the  country  well  is  another  question. 
They  did  so  in  spite  of  the  system;  and  we  shall 
hear  them  claiming  that  it  was  actually  the  defects 
of  the  system  which  enabled  strong  and  able  men 
to  hold  power. 

Our  system  of  popular  or  parliamentary  repre- 
sentation in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century 
consisted  theoretically  of — to  omit  Scotland — about 
quarter  of  a  million  free,  independent,  and  open- 
eyed  voters,  who  sent  every  seven  years  468  repre- 
sentatives to  Westminster  to  keep  the  King  in  check, 
control  finance,  and  initiate  legislation.  There  was, 
it  is  true,  a  house  of  barons  and  bishops  next  door 
who  could  veto  whatever  the  Commons  did ;  and  the 
King  could  veto  (or  refuse  to  sign)  anything  on 
which  they  agreed.  But  we  shall  not  be  tempted  to 
shed  many  tears  over  these  improper  impediments 
to  the  will  of  the  people  if  we  first  study  how  the 
popular  representatives  were  chosen.  The  qualifi- 
cations for  voting  were  so  ancient  and  complicated 
that  an  army  of  lawyers  grew  fat  on  the  constant 
quarrels.  The  chief  qualification  was  the  possession 
of  a  house,  or  the  paying  of  taxes.  Since  the  vote 
was  open,  this  at  once  put  the  voter  at  the  mercy 
of  a  wealthy  landlord.  Some  towns  consisted  of 
only  a  few  score  houses,  and  were  owned  entirely 
by  one  man.  They  formed  his  "  pocket-borough, " 
transferable  by  will  like  a  Russian  estate  with  a 
thousand  serfs,  or  liable  at  any  time  to  be  offered 
to  the  highest  bidder  on  the  market.  In  many  cases 
the  town  was  halved  between  two  landlords,  but  as 
nearly  every  borough  in  England  returned  two  mem- 
bers, the  duality  of  ownership  presented  no  diffi- 
culty. Here  are  a  few  advertisements  from  London 
newspapers  on  the  eve  of  a  parliamentary  struggle : 

"  Whoever  wishes  for  a  seat  in  the  House,  by 
honourable  and  constitutional  means,  may  have 


THE   FIGHT   FOR   REFORM  71 

the  choice  of  many,  where  their  success  can  be 
made  certain.  Address  a  line  to  M.  B.,  No.  11, 
Doun  Street,  Piccadilly."  (The  Telegraph,  Sept- 
ember 5th,  1795.) 

"  The  present  system  of  electioneering  is 
attended  with  great  evils,  among  which  the  follow- 
ing are  not  the  least — much  trouble,  heavy  ex- 
pense, and  great  uncertainty  of  success.  The 
advertiser  knows  how  to  obtain  seats  in  the  House 
without  difficulty.  His  plan  is  infallible  and  per- 
fectly constitutional.  None  but  principals  can  be 
treated  with.  Address  a  line  to  M.  B.,  No.  11 
Doun  Street,  Piccadilly."  (The  Courier,  Septem- 
ber 3rd,  1795.) 

"  Counsellor  Baldwin,  Secretary  to  the  Duke  of 
Portland,  is  to  be  elected  (not  nominated)  for  the 
borough  of  Malton,  in  the  gift  of  Earl  Fitz- 
william."  (The  Times,  October,  18th,  1795.)* 

A  very  large  number  of  the  smaller  constituencies 
were  thus  entirely  dominated  by  landowners  or  em- 
ployers.     They  used  their  absolute  power  to  help 
their  parties,  which  helped  them,  or  they  sold  it  for 
the  time  of  the  election.     The  above  advertisements, 
inserted  by  some  agent  of  such  borough-lords,  are 
plain  enough;    and  we  have  already  seen  how  Lord 
Chesterfield  found  ,£2,500  too  small  a  price  for  one 
seat.     The  smallest  borough  returned  two  members.,! 
Ludgershall  was  a  village  of  seventy  houses.       We!  • 
saw  that  the  owner  of  these  got  £9,000  for  them ;  \ 
and  as  mere  property  they  were  probably  not  worth ; 
a  thousand  pounds. 

The  householders  were  not  always  thus  controlled, 
especially  in  the  larger  towns.  In  these  places  one 
found  the  free  and  independent  voter;  and  one 
generally  found  that  he  put  a  high  price  on  his  free- 

*  These  extracts  are  taken  from  Mrs  Thelwall's  Life  of  John 
Thducall,  vol.  I.,  p.  364. 


72  THE  TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

dom.  There  were  certain  places  of  sound  public 
spirit  which  rejected  both  bribery  and  coercion. 
They  were  relatively  few.  In  the  course  of  the 
eighteenth  century  such  a  subtle  pervasive  flood  of 
corruption  poured  over  the  constituencies  that, 
where  intimidation  was  impossible,  bribery  was 
general.  There  was  so  little  communication  that  the 
price  of  a  vote  varied.  At  Boston  it  was  five  guineas ; 
at  Wallingford  forty.  Lord  Shelburne  himself 
speaks  of  working  men  who  were  offered  <£700  for 
their  vote,  so  that  the  cost  of  a  single  election  was 
known  to  run  to  £30,000.*  Where  there  was  not  a 
definite  tariff,  there  were  free  meals  and  free  drinks, 
and  the  long  and  costly  process  which  is  still  known 
as  nursing  a  constituency,  and  is  still  practised. 

In  other  places  the  stubbornness  of  a  group  of 
independent  voters  was  defeated,  or  the  expense  of 
bribing  them  reduced,  by  clerical  pressure  or  by  a 
local  abundance  of  Government-servants.  In  many 
coast-towns  the  excise-men  could  turn  an  election, 
and  the  party  hi  power  or  the  crown  unblushingly 
controlled  the  votes  of  these  civil  servants  every- 
where. In  other  places,  again,  very  numerous 
places,  the  right  to  vote  was  by  ancient  charter  con- 
fined to  the  "corporation."  This  was,  in  theory, 
the  municipal  authority,  but  in  those  roadless  and 
entirely  insanitary  days  the  corporation  really  did 
nothing  except  vote.  The  members  elected  each 
other,  or  passed  the  privilege  from  father  to  son. 
One  can  guess  the  value  of  being  a  member  of  one  of 
these  corporations  in  the  glorious  days  of  the  Nabobs. 
Any  man  would  pay  £4,000  for  a  seat,  and  the  mem- 
bers of  the  corporations  varied  from  two  or  three  to 
a  score. 

In  many  places  a  freeman  had  the  right  to  vote, 

*  See  G.  S.  Veitch's  Genesis  of  Parliamentary  Reform  (1913) 
and  Oldfield's  History  of  Parliaments  and  History  of  the  House 
of  Commons. 


THE   FIGHT   FOR   REFORM  73 

but  this  apparently  admirable  arrangement  easily 
lent  itself  to  corruption.  The  corporation  could  con- 
fer the  freedom  on  any  it  pleased,  and  in  an  uncer- 
tain election,  or  for  a  substantial  consideration,  or 
under  coercion  from  the  local  lord,  it  would  create 
hundreds  of  these  voters.  It  is  on  record  that  when 
Earl  Lonsdale  saw  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  gaining  on 
him  at  a  Carlisle  election,  he  brought  in  1,400  men 
from  his  estates  and  collieries  and  "  induced  "  the 
corporation  to  make  them  freemen  and  voters  on  the 
spot.  In  some  places  one  acquired  a  vote  by  marry- 
ing the  daughter  of  a  freeman,  and  even  this  ad- 
venturous method  did  not  deter  some  from  seeking 
the  profitable  franchise. 

Most  outrageous  of  all  were  the  burgage-voters,  the 
owners  of  sticks  or  stones  which  represented  a 
vanished  town,  or  even  of  certain  pig-styes  or  bits 
of  land.  At  Midhurst  the  burgage  was  a  heap  of  118 
stones  in  the  middle  of  a  field.  For  this  field  and 
a  hioderate  amount  of  surrounding  estate  (197  acres 
in  all)  the  Earl  of  Egremont  paid  ,£42,000.  On 
election  days  the  Earl  handed  to  three  or  four  trusty 
men  (who  would  immediately  return  the  parchments 
after  voting)  title-deeds  to  these  stones,  and  they 
returned  two  members,  nominated  by  him,  to  the 
House.  In  this  "constituency  "  there  was  not  a 
single  house  or  inhabitant.  Much  the  same  was  Old 
Sarum,  where  the  last  apology  for  a  house  was  de- 
stroyed in  1792.  Its  one  inhabitant  until  that  date 
sold  refreshments  to  visitors  in  a  dilapidated  shanty. 
By  burgage-right,  belonging  to  Lord  Camelford,  it 
returned  two  members.  The  neighbouring  city  of 
Salisbury  had  one  member.  At  Westbury  the  sacred 
totem  was  a  wall.  In  other  places  it  was  a  share  in 
a  disused  pit  or  a  decaying  cottage.  In  one  place  it 
was  a  stone  hi  the  middle  of  a  stream.  Most  of  these 
things  were  owned  by  peers;  and  lawyers  loved 
them. 


74  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

The  modern  reader  will  feel  that  I  am  selecting 
a  few  eccentric  antiquities  from  what  may  be  a 
generally  respectable  list.  How  could  Fox  and  Pitt 
(except  for  a  brief  period)  defend  such  a  system  ? 
How  the  politicians  defended  such  a  system  is  pre- 
cisely one  of  the  points  I  am  going  to  impress  upon 
the  reader.  It  is  an  important  part  of  the  psycho- 
logical equipment  we  will  bring  to  the  study  of  our 
modern  politicians.  But  it  is  material  to  under- 
stand the  system  they  defended,  and  I  will  therefore 
take  in  alphabetical  order,  not  selecting  "  awful  ex- 
amples," the  first  forty  boroughs  in  Oldfield's 
exhaustive  list.  I  merely  condense  his  long  descrip- 
tion of  each : 

Abingdon. — Six  hundred  householder- voters. 
"  Very  corrupt  " — the  local  representative  of  the 
Treasury  buys  the  seat — but  "  as  independent  as 
any  borough  can  be  under  the  present  system  "  ! 

Amersham. — One  hundred  and  twenty  house- 
holder-voters. All  are  tenants  of  one  man  who  re- 
turns his  two  sons  to  Parliament. 

St  Albans. — Five  hundred  and  sixteen  house- 
holder-voters. They  are  controlled  by  Earl  Spencer 
(who  returns  his  brother-in-law)  and  Lord  Grim- 
stone  (who  returns  his  nephew). 

Aldeburgh. — Eighty  householder-voters.  The 
borough  is  the  private  property  of  P.  C.  Crespigny, 
Esquire. 

Aldborough. — A  village  of  fifty-seven  houses. 
Each  householder  has  a  vote.  Nearly  all  belong  to 
the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  who  returns  two  members. 

Andover. — A  town  of  two  thousand  houses,  but 
the  vote  is  confined  to  a  corporation  of  twenty-four 
men,  who  "  elect  one  another." 

Appleby. — A  hundred  burgage- voters,  the  bur- 
gages  owned  and  the  votes  controlled  by  the  Earl  of 
Thanet  and  the  Lonsdales.  "  Hog-sties  which  give 
votes  as  burgage-holds  have  been  purchased  at  a 


THE   FIGHT   FOR   REFORM  75 

price  exceeding  all  belief."  Sir  P.  Francis  won  the 
seat  in  1802.  There  was  one  voter.  Sir  P.  Francis 
facetiously  thanked  the  electorate  for  its  unanimity. 

Arundel. — One  hundred  and  ninety  householder- 
voters.  Rank  bribery,  and  result  controlled  by  the 
Duke  of  Norfolk. 

Ashburton. — Two  hundred  householder- voters, 
nominally.  Really  two  voters,  the  owners.  Lord 
Clinton  and  Sir  R.  Palk. 

Aylesbury. — Five  hundred  householder-voters. 
The  Marquis  of  Buckingham  always  returns  one  of 
the  two  members. 

Banbury. — Eighteen  voters,  strictly  controlled  by 
the  Earl  of  Guildford. 

Barnstable. — An  open  borough.  No  patron. 
Three  hundred  and  fifty  voters. 

Bath. — A  large  town  in  the  eighteenth  century. 
Vote  confined  to  a  corporation  of  eighteen  voters, 
"  who  elect  one  another,"  and  are  under  the  control 
of  the  Marquis  of  Bath  and  Earl  Camden. 

Beaumaris. — Twenty-four  voters,  controlled  by 
Lord  Bulkeley. 

Bedford. — Fourteen  hundred  voters.  A  large 
number  under  the  control  of  the  Duke  of  Bedford, 
but  much  independence. 

Great  Bedwin. — Eighty  householder- voters.  All 
are  tenants  of  the  Earl  of  Aylesbury,  who  dictates 
the  issue  of  elections. 

Beeralston. — Seventy  bur  gage-voters.  Each  pays 
threepence  per  year  rent  to  the  Earl  of  Beverley, 
who  appoints  the  member. 

Berwick. — Six  hundred  voters.  Lord  Delaval 
dictates  the  return  of  one  of  the  two  members. 

Beverley. — One  thousand  voters.  Two  hundred 
are  tenants  of  Lord  Yarborough,  who  returns  one 
member. 

Bewdley. — A  corporation  of  thirteen  voters,  who 
take  their  orders  from  Lord  Lyttleton. 


76  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

Bishop9  s-Castle. — Fifty  householder-voters.  All 
are  tenants  of  Lord  Clive,  who  owns  the  borough. 

Blechingley. — Ninety  householder- voters.  All  are 
tenants  of  Sir  R.  Clayton. 

Bodmyn. — A  corporation  of  thirty-six  voters,  con- 
trolled by  Sir  J.  Morshead. 

Boroughbridge. — A  village  with  sixty-five  burgage- 
voters,  the  burgages  all  owned  by  the  Duke  of  New- 
castle. 

Bassiney. — A  small  village  of  twenty  houses. 
Voting  confined  to  the  corporation.  In  1781  and 
1790  there  was  only  one  living  member  of  the  cor- 
poration, and  he  returned  two  members.  In  1795 
there  were  four  voters,  and  they  were  under  the 
control  of  the  Earl  of  Mount  Edgcumbe  and  the 
Hon.  Wortley  Stuart. 

Boston. — Three  hundred  and  eighty  householder- 
voters.  The  Duke  of  Ancaster  has  much  influence, 
but  there  is  a  good  deal  of  independence.  [This 
description  shows  that  Oldfield  is  not  addicted  to 
exaggeration.  The  price  of  a  vote  in  Boston  was, 
notoriously,  five  guineas.] 

Brackley. — A  corporation  of  thirty-two  voters 
under  the  Earl  of  Bridgewater. 

Br amber. — Fourteen  wretched  cottages  give  bur- 
gage-votes.  Half  belong  to  the  Duke  of  Rutland 
and  half  to  Lord  Calthorpe.  Each  returns  one 
member  to  Parliament. 

Brecon. — One  hundred  voters,  completely  domi- 
nated by  Sir  C.  Morgan. 

Bridgenorth. — Seven  hundred  voters,  under  the 
influence  of  J.  Whit  more. 

Bridgewater. — Two  hundred  and  seventy  voters. 
Earl  Poulet  dictates  one  member. 

Bridport. — Two  hundred  and  thirty  voters. 
66  One  of  the  few  independent  boroughs  in  Eng- 
land." 

Bristol — The    second    city    of    England    in    the 


THE   FIGHT   FOR   REFORM  77 

eighteenth  century.  There  are  five  thousand  voters 
and  two  members — of  whom  the  Duke  of  Beaufort 
dictates  one  and  the  Duke  of  Portland  the  other. 

Buckingham. — Less  than  two  hundred  houses. 
Two  members.  Thirteen  corporation-voters,  under 
the  absolute  control  of  the  Marquis  of  Buckingham. 

Bury  St  Edmunds. — Six  thousand  inhabitants  and 
thirty-seven  voters. 

Camelford.— Sold  in  1812  by  the  Duke  of  Bedford 
for  <£32,000.  It  has  nine  voters  and  two  members. 

There  is  no  need  to  prolong  the  list.  This  first 
section  of  it  is  as  typical  of  the  rest  as  the  first  yard 
of  cloth  is  of  a  bale.  Even  worse  instances  occur. 
Castle  Rising  has  [in  1795]  only  two  houses,  owned  f 
by  Earl  Cholmondely,  and  returns  two  members.! 
Corfe  Castle  has  fourteen  resident  voters  and  it  re- 
turns two  members,  who  own  the  voters.  Dunwichj 
has  scarcely  a  whole  house,  but  it  has  twelve  voters} 
(bossed  by  Lord  Huntingfield)  and  two  members. 
At  Derby  the  tenants  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire 
are  honorary  freemen.  At  Dorchester  the  Earl  of 
Shaftesbury  has  votes  attached  to  various  bits  of 
waste  land.  Ludgershall  has  seventy  houses,  owned 
by  two  men,  each  of  whom  returns  a  member : 
Liverpool,  with  three  thousand  voters,  has  only  the 
same  number  of  members.  Portsmouth  has  twenty 
thousand  inhabitants  and  a  hundred  voters.  Scar- 
borough has  seven  hundred  rate-payers  and  twenty- 
two  voters.  Rye  has  four  members  and  nine  voters. 
Rochester  has  six  hundred  and  thirty  voters  and  one 
member.  London  has  two  members. 

This  was  the  state  of  the  electorate  in  1795,  after 
a  series  of  "  reforms."  A  few  details  will  be  added 
when  we  reach  the  age  of  the  Reform  Bill,  and  a  few 
general  statements  may  complete  this  description  of 
the  electorate  that  attracted  the  attention,  and  for 
a  brief  period  faintly  awoke  the  zeal,  of  Mr  Pitt. 
The  421  members  sent  to  Parliament  by  these  re- 


78  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

markable  boroughs  represented  84,000  electors;  if 
a  few  large  towns  were  omitted  the  proportion  would 
be  appalling.  County- voters,  in  any  case,  numbered 
130,000,  yet  they  had  a  right  to  only  92  members. 
Cornwall  alone — it  was  full  of  rotten  boroughs — sent 
forty-four  members  to  Parliament.  Scotland,  with 
a  population  of  two  millions  and  2643  voters,  re- 
turned only  forty-five  members.  Of  the  whole  468 
"  representatives  of  the  people  "  at  Westminster  it 
was  estimated  that  306  were  returned  by  the 
Treasury  and  162  individuals  (peers  and  gentry) ; 
and  in  nearly  every  other  place,  where  a  member 
was  "  freely  "  returned,  the  election  was  an  orgie 
of  beer,  bribery  and  brutality. 

After  this  description  there  is  little  need  to  dwell 
on  the  character  of  the  members  assembled  at  West- 
minster. To  speak  of  the  England  of  the  eighteenth 
century  as  a  self-governing  community  is  ludicrous. 
Of  four  million  adults  less  than  quarter  of  a  million 
were  enfranchised ;  and  of  this  quarter  of  a  million 
only  a  few  thousands  deliberately  sent  men  to  repre- 
sent their  views  and  principles  in  the  House.  Two- 
thirds  of  the  members  of  Parliament  represented  a 
handful  of  rich  people.  A  large  proportion  were 
dummies  of  the  Treasury,  for  there  were  nearly 
50,000  exciseman-voters. 

Upon  this  system  our  bishops  bestowed  their 
blessing — not  a  single  suggestion  of  reform  in  three 
centuries  came  from  the  episcopal  members  of  the 
Lords — and  our  most  distinguished  politicians  ex- 
pended their  most  graceful  rhetoric  decade  after 
decade.  But  about  the  middle  of  the  second  half 
of  the  eighteenth  century  their  complacency  began  to 
be  disturbed  by  cries  of  reform.  Too  much,  perhaps, 
has  been  made  of  individuals — chiefly  Pitt  and 
Wilkes — in  this  connection,  and  not  enough  of 
general  changes.  The  agricultural  revolution  had 
already  proceeded  far,  and  the  industrial  revolution 


THE   FIGHT   FOR   REFORM  79 

had  begun.  Communication  was  improved.  But 
far  more  important  than  these  things — for  we  really 
do  not  find  much  improvement  in  the  electorate 
itself — was  the  economic  development  which  created 
a  new  wealthy  class  apart  from  the  old  land-barons 
and  landed  gentry.  It  was  the  Nabobs  who  taught 
Whigs  and  Tories  the  elements  of  political  morality, 
by  making  political  immorality  more  costly. 

The  elder  Pitt,  for  instance,  had  used  the 
machinery  of  the  rotten  boroughs  all  his  life,  and 
his  often-mentioned  disposition  for  reform  was  little 
more  than  the  kind  of  velleity  we  are  accustomed  to 
find  in  statesmen.  He  held  strongly  that  the  pur- 
pose of  Parliament  was  to  represent  property,  not 
persons.  Cut  away  the  influence  of  the  Treasury, 
and  it  did  that  much.  As  to  the  rotten  boroughs, 
they  were  certainly  "  diseased  limbs  "  of  the  Con- 
stitution. It  might,  however,  be  dangerous  to 
amputate,  and  the  prudent  statesmen  would  rather 
give  an  increase  of  good  blood  and  new  vigour  to  it 
(by  enfranchising  new  boroughs)  wherewith  it  might 
resist  the  poison.  One  is  quite  familiar  with  this 
political  dialect.  What  he  really  wanted  was  the 
suppression  of  such  corruption  (excise-votes,  etc.) 
as  served  his  enemies.  Rotten  boroughs  and  bur-  /  ( 
gage-votes  were  useful  to  him  and  his  party  and  he 
would  not  touch  them.  But  the  advent  of  the 
Nabobs  in  his  old  age  stirred  him.  "  Without  con- 
nections," he  said  in  the  Lords,  after  he  had  taken 
the  title  of  Earl  of  Chatham.  "  without  any  natural 
interest  in  the  soil,  the  importers  of  foreign  gold 
have  forced  their  way  into  Parliament  by  such  a 
torrent  of  corruption  as  no  private  hereditary  for- 
tune could  resist."  The  sting  is  in  the  tail. 

Chatham  gave  utterance  to  this  virtuous  indigna- 
tion in  1770,  thirty-five  years  after  the  stones  of  Old 
Sarum  (which  were  a  possession  of  his  family)  had 
sent  him  to  the  House  of  Commons.  The  Nabobs 


80  THE  TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

were  not  responsible  for  that  state  of  the  electorate 
which  we  have  examined ;  nor  were  they  responsible 
for  the  presence  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  1770 
(according  to  the  Annual  Register)  of  one  hundred 
and  ninety  place-holders.  But  a  separate  movement 
was  beginning  in  London  which  added  to  the  slight 
fermentation  of  reform-ideas.  In  1769  the  famous 
Letters  of  Junius  had  appeared,  and  John  Wilkes 
was  returned  for  Middlesex.  The  service  of  "Junius" 
was  rather  indirect.  Like  the  Whigs  generally,  he 
demanded  little  more  parliamentary  reform  than 
Chatham  did. 

John  Wilkes  really  begins  the  campaign  for  re- 
form, but  his  history  does  not  dispose  the  modern 
democrat  to  bow  very  reverently  before  his  statue. 
He  was  the  son  of  a  London  distiller,  educated  at 
Ley  den  University,  where  he  met  Baron  D'Holbach 
and  learned  advanced  ideas  about  God  and  man. 
Rousseau's  Social  Contract  had,  we  must  remember, 
appeared  in  1760.  The  ferment  was  already  fairly 
brisk  in  France.  Wilkes  was  a  scholar  and  a  gentle- 
man :  also  a  rake  and  a  man  of  no  moral  rlplWpy. 
He  had  bought  his  seat  in  Parliament,  He  was, 
however,  disappointed  in  his  ambition,  and  he 
founded  The  North  Briton  (1762)  and  lashed  the 
Court-party.  He  was  convicted  of  "  libel,"  and, 
although  Middlesex  thrice  returned  him  in  1769,  the 
House  declared  him  incapable  of  sitting.  At  a 
fourth  election  the  Court-party  opposed  a  Colonel 
Luttrell  to  him,  and  they  were  defeated  by  1143  to 
296  votes.  Yet  the  House  of  Commons  dprlared 
JLuttrell  elected  !  London  raged,  and  the  first  society 
ior"llie  rerorni  of  Parliament  was  established. 

Perhaps  this  assisted  Chatham  in  his  age  to  see 
the  enormity  of  political  corruption.  We  must  add 
that  already  in  America  associations  of  Sons  and 
Daughters  of  Liberty — with  tar  and  feathers  for 
those  who  wanted  the  liberty  not  to  join — were 


THE   FIGHT   FOR   REFORM  81 

springing  up,  and  under  the  influence  of  American 
and  French  ideas  Englishmen  were  beginning  to 
think.  The  Whigs  began  to  coquet  with  the  move- 
ment in  a  familiar  way.  We  practical  and  experi- 
enced politicians,  they  said  to  reformers,  will  show 
you  how  to  carry  out  your  ideas.  They  would  re- 
form all  that  helped  the  Tories  only,  and  find  all 
other  reform  impracticable. 

Such  dates  as  stand  out  in  the  calendar  of  the 
time,  as  far  as  it  concerns  us,  illustrate  this  develop- 
ment. In  1770  a  sober  country  member  brought  into 
the  House  a  Bill  for  disfranchising  revenue-officers. 
They  numbered  50,000,  as  we  saw,  and  every  man's 
vote  was  controlled  by  the  Treasury  and  used  to 
support  the  party  of  "  king's  friends  "  in  the  House. 
This  early  attempt  to  put  an  end  to  a  grave  scandal 
was  defeated  by  263  votes  to  188. 

In  1773  the  American  colonists  fired  the  imagina- 
tion of  Europe  by  scattering  the  cargoes  of  the 
tea-ships  over  the  waters  of  Boston  Harbour.  Every- 
body in  England  and  France  knew  what  the  quarrel 
meant.  There  was  to  be  no  taxation  without  repre- 
sentation. The  modestly  liberal  political  ideas  of 
John  Locke  were  growing  in  the  mind  of  the  world. 
When  the  colonists  proceeded  to  declare  their  inde- 
pendence, and  the  French,  stimulated  by  this  ex- 
ample, rapidly  developed  the  social  gospel  of  the 
Encyclopaedists,  the  vague  body  of  Whig  sentiment 
in  England  began  to  crystallise  in  two  definite  forms. 
The  more  conservative  or  the  less  sincere  rallied  to 
the  Tories  and  the  King ;  the  more  liberal  and  sincere 
gathered  under  the  new  banner  of  Radicalism.  New 
popular  leaders — Home  Tooke,  Major  Cartwright, 
etc. — took  up  and  developed  the  demands  of  Wilkes. 
The  failure  of  the  American  War,  the  scandals  which 
(as  usual)  transpired  in  the  course  of  operations, 
weakened  the  Tories  and  courtiers,  and  encouraged 
the  Whigs  and  Radicals.  London  and  Westminster 


82  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

were  developing  a  formidable  strength.  Wilkes,  in 
1776,  tried  the  temper  of  the  House  with  a  compre- 
hensive reform-measure,  but  the  time  had  not  yet 
come.  Lord  North  killed  it  with  a  few  pleasant  and 
graceful  remarks  in  which  Pitt's  convenient  theory  of 
the  danger  of  amputations  had  a  plausible  position. 
But  a  sterner  man  than  Wilkes,  Major  Cartwright, 
who  had  asimilated  American  ideas  in  the  colonies 
themselves,  had  now  espoused  the  reform.  He  was 
for  adult  suffrage,  the  ballot^an/i 


^ 

This  concrete  and  admirable  program  it  was  which 
chiefly  drew  real  reformers  into  a  new  party,  and 
caused  the  more  reactionary  Whigs  to  ruin  the  move- 
ment by  compromise.  As  Mr  Veitch  says,  they 
aimed  at  passing  an  economic  reform,  which  would 
strengthen  their  own  position  and  weaken  that  of 
the  King's  party,  and  shelving  the  real  political  re- 
form, which  would  affect  both  Tory  and  Whig.  In 
1778  one  of  their  number  proposed  to  exclude  con- 
tractors from  the  House.  The  Bill  passed,  but  it 
was  prevented  by  the  ministry  from  becoming  law. 
Burke  had  no  greater  success  with  a  partial  measure 
in  the  same  year. 

By  1780  the  reform-sentiment  became  a  reform- 
movement.  Centres  of  Association  were  formed  in 
the  country,  and  they  began  to  correspond  with 
each  other.  Petitions  were  sent  to  the  House.  Con- 
ferences were  held  in  London.  It  must  be  admitted 
that  the  movement  was  by  no  means  purely  ideal- 
istic. Many  petitions  came  from  would-be  voters  in 
constituencies  where  a  corporation  monopolised  the 
franchise,  and  monopolised  the  guineas  which  a  vote 
represented.  In  other  cases,  the  chief  concern  was 
economy.  The  movement  gathered  strength  from 
all  sources,  except  the  orthodox  Whigs  and  the 
Tories,  who  raised  their  eyebrows  in  horror  at  the 
growth  of  "  anarchy." 

Weariness    with    the    American    War    broke    the 


THE   FIGHT   FOR   REFORM  88 

power  of  the  Tories  for  a  time  and  compelled  the 
King  to  lean  upon  the  Whigs.  At  once,  in  1782,  they 
grasped  their  opportunity,  and  passed  the  limited 
and  (to  themselves)  innocuous  measure  of  reform  to 
which  they  were  pledged.  Revenue-officers  were 
disfranchised,  and  seventy  boroughs  were  thus  de- 
livered from  the  influence  of  the  Court  and  the 
Treasury.  Contractors  were  expelled  from  the  House 
of  Commons.  Sinecures  to  the  extent  of  <£7'0,000 
a  year  were  abolished.  In  anger  and  sorrow  the 
clients  of  the  old  regime  looked  out  for  the  end  of 
the  world,  while  the  Radicals  made  each  measure 
of  reform  the  base  of  a  larger  demand. 

To  us  who  look  back  the  sequel  offers  no  surprise. 
Political  experience  down  to  our  own  time  would 
enable  any  man  to  forecast  it.  The  greater  part  of 
the  Whigs  now  quitted  the  camp  of  reform  and 
adopted  the  scare-cries  of  their  Tory  opponents. 
To  this  point  they  had  benefited  by  reform.  The 
further  reforms  which  were  demanded — and  the 
sketch  in  the  early  part  of  this  chapter  will  show 
how  large  and  imperative  they  were — would  gravely 
disturb  the  basis  of  the  power  of  the  Whigs,  and 
they  therefore  discovered  that  the  Constitution  was 
in  danger  and  the  wisdom  of  Parliament  imperilled. 
To  the  Radicals,  at  the  time,  it  mattered  little  that 
Horace  Walpole  and  Fox  endorsed  the  Tory  idea 
of  the  danger  of  surgical  operations.  With  them 
was  the  younger  Pitt,  the  rising  star  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  who  had  entered  Parliament  in  1781, 
and  pleaded  for  comprehensive  reform.  In  1782  he 
moved  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee.  It  was 
refused,  and,  when  he  repeated  the  demand  in  1783, 
under  the  Coalition-government  of  Fox  and  Shel- 
burne,  it  was  again  refused.  The  Coalition  was 
broken,  and  in  1784  the  country  faced  an  election  on 
the  reform-issue.  In  spite  of  the  most  impudent  use 
of  the  machinery  of  corruption;  in  spite  of  harrowing 


84  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

appeals  to  save  property  and  the  country  and  the 
last  elements  of  virtue  from  the  devouring  dragon 
of  reform,  the  country  rejected  the  Coalitionists,  and 
Pitt  became  Premier. 

The  reformers  prepared  their  clothes  for  the  in- 
auguration of  the  millenium,  and  in  1785  Pitt  pro- 
duced his  great  measure.  It  was  not  heroic. 
Thirty-six  decayed  boroughs  were  to  be  politely  re- 
quested to  sell  their  "  rights  "  to  the  nation  for  one 
million  sterling,  and  the  seats  which  they  had  filled 
were  to  be  transferred  to  London  and  the  counties. 
Less  than  a  hundred  thousand  men  would  be  en- 
franchised, and  every  borough  and  burgage-holder 
who  chose  to  consider  his  "  rights  "  worth  more  than 
a  share  in  a  million  pounds,  and  refused  to  sell,  was 
to  be  left  undisturbed.  Yet  the  House  of  Commons 
refused  to  consider  even  this  slight  alleviation  of  an 
intolerable  scandal.  Lord  North  launched  Tory 
thunder  upon  it.  Fox  and  Burke  poured  Liberal 
cold  water  upon  it.  The  House,  by  248  votes  to 
174,  refused  leave  to  introduce  the  Bill ! 

And  there  ended  the  attempt  of  the  eighteenth 
century  to  put  its  squalid  political  house  in  order. 
A  few  partial  reforms  were  carried.  The  Radicals 
pressed  for  more,  and,  at  the  centenary  anniversary 
lof  the  Revolution  of  1688,  stirred  the  country  to 
yndignation.  The  fervour  of  Pitt  had  evaporated, 
and  a  debate  on  reform  in  the  House  in  1790  almost 
extinguished  the  last  hope.  One  leader  of  the 
House  after  another  defended  the  execrable  system 
which  I  have  described.  Burke  assured  the  House 
that  "  the  people  did  not  wisji  for  any  reform. " 
Wyndham  protested,  in  accents  of  dignity  and 
sincerity,  that  "  the  House  of  Commons,  constituted 
as  it  was,  answered  all  the  beneficent  purposes  that 
could  possibly  be  desired."  And  Pitt?  The  great 
protagonist  of  only  five  years  ago  now  suavely 
observed  that,  after  Mr  Wyndham 's  eloquent  speech, 


THE   FIGHT   FOR   REFORM  85 

he  need  only  observe  that  this  was  no  tune  for 
changes !  He  moved  the  adjournment  of  the  House 
and  it  was  carried.  The  political  gentlemen  of  Eng- 
land gave  a  further  lease  of  forty  years  of  life  to 
the  sordid  system  we  have  considered. 

A  new  phrase  had  been  invented :  "  Was  it  wise 
to  repair  one's  house  during  a  hurricane  ?  "  Blessed 
be  the  phrase-maker,  for  he  shall  possess  the  earth. 
A  hurricane — that  is  to  say,  a  most  wise  (up  to  that 
point)  and  beneficent  reform — was  proceeding  at 
Paris.  Sound  middle-class  statesmen  still  controlled 
the  French  Revolution,  and  nothing  had  yet  been 
done  beyond  the  suppression  of  flagrant  abuses  and 
political  crimes.  But  the  political  instinct  which, 
guided  by  a  cynical  estimate  of  the  general  intelli- 
gence, makes  forces  out  of  phrases  had  the  good 
fortune  to  discover  the  word  "  hurricane."  It  ap- 
peared in  every  journal.  It  was  on  every  lip.  Old 
Sarum,  and  the  disused  pits  of  Droitwich,  and  the 
pig-styes  and  pigeon-cotes  of  Richmond,  and  all  the 
drunken  voters  and  corrupt  corporations  and  cor- 
rupting landlords,  smiled  in  the  sun  once  more. 
FQX  almost  alone  of  the  politicians  of  England 
scornecTThe  trickery.  It  was  useless.  From  George 
III.  to  the  fishermen  of  East  and  West  Looe  spread 
a  sentiment  of  relief.  There  was  a  hurricane  blow- 
ing. They  need  not  repair  the  national  house. 


CHAPTER   VI 


LOOKING  back  over  those  years,  with  our  historical 
charts  outspread  before  us,  we  trace  two  develop- 
ments which  were  bound  to  enter  into  a  fatal  con- 
flict and  prolong  the  life  of  corruption.  The  first 
was  the  development  of  Radicalism,  or  of  a  brood 
of  Jhumanitarianism  in  which  the  Radicals  took  the 
most  prominent  part.  Other  strong  and  earnest  men 
came  to  the  assistance  of  Cartwright.  There  were 
the  sturdy  Hardy  and  the  impassioned  Thelwall. 
Priestly  and  the  Birmingham  Unitarians  worked  in 
the  Midlands.  Home  Tooke  stung  the  metropolis. 
The  Fox  (a  Liberal)  section  of  the  Whigs  continued 
for  some  years  to  profess  the  new  principles. 
Southey  (in  his  first  phase)  lent  his  aid.  Paine 's 
Rights  of  Man  obtained  a  circulation  which  threw 
the  King  into  transports  of  rage.  Reformers  flattered 
themselves  that,  in  spite  of  the  secession  of  Pitt  the 
moment  a  shadow  of  a  pretext  was  offered  him, 
they  were  on  the  eve  of  the  millenium.  There  were 
'Corresponding  Societies  and  Societies  of  Friends  of 
the  People  in  many  places,  and  the  new  "  citizens 
of  the  universe "  supported  fiery  toasts  at  their 
dinners.  Despotism  was  doomed.  France  had  lit  the 
world.  This  corrupt  Parliament  would  not  last  ten 
years. 

But  the  French  Revolution,  to  which  they  all 
looked,  had  not  proceeded  two  years  before  the 
Friends  of  the  People  began  to  receive  very  rough 
treatment  from  the  people.  Priestley's  house  was 

86 


THE   "GREAT'    REFORM  BILL         81 

wrecked  in  a  terrible  riot.  London  taverns  were  in- 
vaded, and  the  "  pro-French  "  diners  were  put  to 
rout.  Politicians  smiled,  and  lashed  the  mob  against 
the  French  and  pro-French.  The  Revolution  entered 
upon  its  second  and  darker  phase.  Mere  Liberals 
and  their  poets  deserted  it,  but  the  more  sturdy 
Radicals  held  on.  We  need  not  study  history.  The 
Russian  Revolution  has  followed  the  same  course, 
and  there  is  the  same  desperate  group  of  apologists 
for  criminal  folly.  It  did  more  harm  even  than 
verbiage  about  hurricanes.  Parliamentary  reform 
came  to  be  recognised  as  the  cry  of  a  small  school 
whom  the  masses  would  hound  out  of  English  life; 
and  whom  the  political  leaders  now  found  it  easy 
and  even  virtuous  to  extinguish. 

On  May  2nd^l793.  several  petitions  for  reforjn  were 
sullenly  received  at  the  House  of  Commons.  Mr  Grey 
— as  he  then  was — gravely  urged  his  fellows  to  con- 
sider the  matter.  He  pointed  out  that  it  was  true 
that,  as  was  asserted  in  one  of  the  petitions,  no  less 
than  ninety-seven  members  were  directly,  and  a  fur- 
ther seventy  indirectly,  appointed  by  peers  or  the 
Treasury;  and  that  ninety-one  Commoners  pro- 
cured the  election  of  a  further  139  members  of  the 
House.  In  a  word,  306  members,  or  a  majority  of 
the  House,  represented  only  the  160  individuals  who 
returned  them.  By  an  overwhelming  majority,  led 
by  Pitt,  it  was  decided  not  to  accept  the  petitions. 

The  last  chance  had  gone.  War  upon  France  had 
been  declared  in  the  previous  month,  and  it  was 
now  treachery  to  entertain  French  ideas  of  rights 
of  man.  The  cause  of  God  was  identified  with  rights 
of  property.  Like  maddened  oxen  the  people,  the 
very  victims  of  this  chicanery,  were  driven  upon  the 
reformers.  There  was  a  hunt  for  "  foreign  agita- 
tors "  and  French  gold.  Special  legislation  against 
"  evil-disposed  "  persons  began.  The  societies  were 
suppressed.  Many  of  the  stoutest  reformers  were 


88  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

sent  to  Botany  Bay;  the  less  stout,  and  their 
printers,  were  intimidated  by  fines  and  imprison- 
ment. Pitt,  the  reformer^  ^inaugurated  a^J6  white 
"  against  English  reformers; He  very  much 
regretted  it,  he  explained.  We  are  familiar  with  the 
language.  There  were  those  who  recalled  the 
spectacle,  which  had  sent  a  thrill  of  admiration 
through  London  some  years  before,  of  Pitt  standing 
at  the  open  door  of  the  House,  vomiting  without 
(from  drunkenness  on  the  previous  night),  and 
listening  to  an  attack  on  him  by  Fox,  and  then 
returning  to  the  benches  to  make  a  brilliant  reply. 
Was  England  hopeless  ?  But  Pitt  was  a  great  man, 
a  splendid  worker  in  the  country's  need,  and  from 
Berwick  to  Land's  End  the  people  rallied  to  him. 
Parliamentary  reform,  said  Home  Tooke  in  1797, 
was  "  dead  and  buried." 

It  rose  again  ten  years  later.  The  horrors  of  the 
Revolution  were  growing  dimmer  in  people's  memo- 
ries, and  the  French  War  imposed  a  terrible  burden. 
New  men  appeared.  Francis  Place,  most  priceless 
of  reformers,  was  secretly  reorganising  forces  in  the 
metropolis.  Robert  Owen,  the  greatest  idealist  of 
the  age,  was  beginning  work  in  the  north.  Cobbett 
was  inventing  a  new  language — plain  English. 
Sir  F.  Burdett  spread  a  new  Radicalism  in  London. 
The  principles  of  the  great  Tory  jurist,  Bentham, 
were  sternly  humanitarian.  Indeed,  in  1809  Ben- 
tham issued  a  Plan  of  Parliamentary  Reform,  in 
which  he  advocated  annual  parliaments,  nearly 
adult  suffrage,  and  equal  electoral  districts.  His 
friend  and  disciple,  James  Mill,  was  detaching  these 
sentiments  from  Tory  politics  and  preparing  the  way 
for  philosophic  Radicalism. 

These  were  small,  if  pregnant,  beginnings,  and  the 
political  leaders  who  sucked  their  oranges  in  the 
House  gave  them  no  support.  In  the  midst  of  the 
war  they  played  their  party-game  with  a  reckless- 


THE   "  GREAT"   REFORM   BILL         89 

ness    which    shocked    many    who    were    far    from 
Radicalism.     There  was  a  general  election  in  1807. 

"  The  great  opposite  factions,"  says  even  the 
genteel  Annual  Register  for  that  year,  "  were  loud 
in  their  accusations  of  each  other.  Each  main- 
tained that  the  other  grasped  at  offices  .  .  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  possession  of  the  public  money. 
The  people  appeared  very  well  disposed  to  believe 
both.  Both  parties,  the  INS  and  OUTS,  as  they 
were  familiarly  called,  had  so  uniformly  embar- 
rassed government,  when  it  was  not  m  their  own 
hands,  and  yet  so  uniformly  taken  the  first  oppor- 
tunity of  deserting  the  cause  they  had  professed 
to  maintain,  that  the  people  at  large  had  absolu- 
tely lost  all  confidence  in  a  majority  of  them." 

It  is  instructive  to  learn  that  in  that  year  "  the 
King  withheld  the  subscription  of  £12,000  with  which 
he  was  accustomed  to  assist  his  ministers  for  the 
time  being  at  a  general  election."  There  was  still, 
little  over  a  century  ago,  a  do  ut  des  contract  be- 
tween the  King  and  the  leading  politicians.  There 
were  worse  things.  In  1809  a  Member  of  Parlia- 
ment, Colonel  War  die,  who  had  inherited  a  dis- 
carded mistress  of  the  Duke  of  York,  the  Com- 
mander-in-Chief,  persuaded  the  lady  to  give  him  in- 
formation which  he  brought  before  the  House.  Mrs 
Clarke  herself  had  done  a  roaring  trade  in  illicit 
commissions,  and  her  princely  protector  had  shared 
the  loot.  One  scandal  dragged  others  to  light,  as 
generally  happened,  and  Perceval  was  compelled  to 
introduce  a  Bill  against  the  brokerage  of  contracts 
and  commissions. 

Still  the  cause  of  reform  languished,  and  politi- 
cians prospered.  In  1810  Ernest  Jones  was  sent  to 
jail  for  protesting  against  the  exclusion  from  the 
House  of  "  strangers."  The  privileged  Briton,  with 
his  unique  system  of  popular  representation,  had 


90  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

still  no  right  to  watch  the  antics  of  his  representa- 
tives or  read  a  literal  record  of  their  proceedings. 
Sir  Francis  Burdett  arose  in  the  House  and  pro- 
tested. He  was  committed  to  the  Tower. 

There  is  no  need  for  us  to  consider  the  period  in 
detail.  Public  attention  was  soon  absorbed  in  the 
final  stages  of  the  titanic  conflict  with  Napoleon, 
then  in  the  Council  of  Vienna  and  the  restoration  of 
feudalism  in  the  nineteenth  century.  A  few  Whigs, 
and  all  the  Radicals,  protested  against  this  mon- 
strous enthronement  of  the  Holy  Alliance  on  the 
smothered  aspirations  of  the  peoples  of  Europe,  but 
it  suited  the  bulk  of  our  politicians.  They  had 
smelled  the  mephitic  vapours  of  the  pit  of  revolu- 
tion, and  their  comfortable  system  was  to  be  pro- 
tected by  closing  the  outlets  abroad.  London  settled 
down  to  a  new  era  of  peace,  prosperity  and  pecula- 
tion. The  Prince  Regent  set  a  glorious  example, 
putting  part  of  the  heavy  annual  price  of  his 
luxury  and  debauch,  with  the  connivance  of  politi- 
cians, on  the  Civil  List.  Neither  the  Spa  Fields 
Riot  (1816)  nor  the  Cato  Street  Conspiracy  (1819) 
disturbed  the  general  complacency.  A  great  meet- 
ing in  Manchester  (1819)  was  settled  by  the  sabres 
of  the  cavalry  and  yeomanry,  and  made  the  pretext 
for  stiffening  the  law  which  forbade  meetings  to 
demand  reform.  More  leaders  of  the  people  were 
arrested,  lodged  in  the  abominable  jails  of  the  time, 
or  sent  to  the  penal  colonies  in  Australia. 

Canning,  whose  liberal  and  humane  disposition 
was  shocked  by  the  despotism  of  foreign  monarchs, 
saw  little  ground  for  reform  at  home.  A  few  more 
sinecures  were  abolished.  A  few  measures  of  no 
great  importance  were  passed.  But  the  growing 
mass  of  the  English  people,  who  rotted  in  the  evil 
underground  dwellings  and  the  filthy  mills  of  the 
industrial  north,  or  were  condemned  to  an  ox-like 
ignorance  and  endurance  over  the  countryside,  were 


THE   "GREAT"   REFORM  BILL         91 

to  remain  in  that  station  to  which,  as  peers  and 
prelates  assured  them,  "  the  Almighty  had  ap- 
pointed them."  Few  then  worked  less  than  seventy- 
five  hours  a  week,  or  earned  more  than  ten  shillings 
a  week.  Children  down  to  the  age  of  six  and  seven 
toiled  twelve  hours  a  day,  six  days  a  week,  for  a 
penny  a  day.  The  moral  condition  corresponded, 
naturally,  to  the  material  condition.  Drunkenness, 
sexual  license,  coarseness,  brutality  and  gambling 
were  all  but  universal.  The  death-rate  was  appal- 
ling, and  the  insecurity  of  life  and  property  a  dis- 
grace to  what  was  called  civilisation.  Ninety  per 
cent,  of  the  people  were  totally  illiterate,  and  even 
the  physical  sunshine  was  excluded  from  their  homes 
by  a  window-tax. 

These  things  concern  me  only  indirectly,  in  so  far 
as  they  reflect  the  character  of  the  politicians  who 
ought  to  have  attended  to  them.  What  directly 
concerns  us  is  that  the  political  system  itself  was 
sodden  with  a  corruption  that  forbade  all  hope  of 
social  legislation.  I  have  given  many  illustrations 
of  this  corruption,  but  if  we  are  to  take  the  true 
measure  of  the  "  great  "  Reform  Bill  of  1832,  and 
the  character  of  the  statesmen  of  the  time,  we  must 
again  glance  at  the  system  which  they  were  com- 
pelled by  public  pressure  to  submit  to  some 
modification.* 

The  forty  counties  of  England  returned  only  82 
members  to  Parliament,  and  twenty-four  cities  re- 
turned only  fifty  members.  London  had  only  four 
members,  although  it  already  had  a  population  of 
a  million.  In  short,  of  the  489  members  who  "repre- 
sented "  England  no  less  than  332  were  returned  by 
166  boroughs  which  had,  collectively,  little  more 
than  the  poulation  of  London.  Large  new  towns 
like  Manchester  and  Birmingham  had  no  represen- 

*  The  best  account,  at  length,  will  be  found  in  E.  &  A. 
Porritt's  Unre formed  House  of  Commons  (2  vols.,  1903). 


92  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

tatives.  Moreover,  the  right  of  voting  was  so 
arbitrarily  distributed  that  there  were  few  places 
in  which  the  majority  of  the  citizens  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  expressing  their  wish.  At  the  Westminster 
election  of  1803  the  brewer,  butler,  bell-ringer, 
gardener,  cook  and  organ-blower  of  the  Abbey 
claimed  the  right  of  vote  in  virtue  of  their  office. 
In  a  large  number  of  places  a  small  and  close  cor- 
poration monopolised  the  right  to  vote.  At  Malmes- 
bury  in  1722  this  small  group  of  men  had  extorted 
a  bribe  of  a  thousand  guineas  for  their  vote;  and 
it  must  be  confessed  that  one  element  of  the  demand 
for  reform  was  the  desire  of  other  citizens  to  share 
this  lucrative  right,  and  a  large  ingredient  of  the 
parliamentary  opposition  was  the  prospect  of  having 
to  bribe  a  thousand  voters  where  hitherto  the  candi- 
date had  needed  to  bribe  only  twenty  or  thirty. 

There  were,  in  addition,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
burgage-voters  :  men  who  held  legal  titles  to  certain 
relics  of  property  to  which  a  vote  had  once  been 
attached.  At  Droitwich  the  right  was  associated 
with  old  pits  which  had  long  ago  ceased  to  provide 
salt.  They  had  returned  two  members  to  Parlia- 
ment during  a  hundred  and  thirty  years  of  sterility. 
At  Downton  there  were  a  hundred  bur  gages,  of 
which  one  man  held  ninety-nine,  while  the  hun- 
dredth was  a  stone  in  the  middle  of  a  stream.  At 
another  place  the  burgage  was  a  plot  of  land  little 
more  than  a  square  yard  in  extent.  In  other  places 
pig-styes  or  pigeon-cotes  gave  the  right  to  vote. 
Here  and  there  they  were  owned  by  women,  and 
these  were  not  less  astute  than  the  men  in  deriving 
profit  from  them.  Some  of  them  were,  like  other 
property  which  gave  control  of  seats,  bought  by  the 
existing  government  in  order  to  secure  its  power  at 
the  next  election.  In  the  reign  of  George  III. 
ministers  bought  a  number  of  seats  at  from  two  to 
four  thousand  pounds  each. 


THE   "GREAT'    REFORM  BILL         93 

Lastly  there  was,  as  we  saw,  a  power  in  many 
places  of  completely  nullifying  an  election  by 
creating  any  number  of  freemen  on  the  eve,  or  the 
day,  of  the  poll.  At  Bristol  in  1812  the  election  was 
settled  by  the  creation  of  1,720  freemen.  At  Maiden 
in  1826  a  thousand  were  created.  At  Gloucester  in 
1779  there  was  a  manufacture  of  513,  and  at  Derby 
of  426.  They  were  not  necessarily  residents.  At 
Coventry,  in  the  1831  election,  235  out  of  the  426 
freeman- voters  were  not  residents.  At  Colchester, 
in  the  same  election,  there  were  900  non-resident 
freeman- voters.  Each  party  used  this  weapon  with- 
out the  least  scruple.  But  in  most  places  the  exist- 
ing freemen  refused  to  have  the  value  of  their  votes 
lowered  by  this  process  of  multiplication.  A  small 
body  of  voters  could  expect  wine,  not  beer,  on  elec- 
tion-day; and  the  money-gift  was  in  proportion. 
Lord  Penrhyn  spent  £30,000  in  a  futile  bid  for  the 
vote  of  the  freemen  of  Liverpool  in  1790.  At  the 
1830  election  a  candidate  spent  £80,000,  bribing 
2,060  freemen.  Where  there  was  fear  of  an  effective 
petition — which  happened  once  in  a  generation — the 
sale  of  the  vote  was  indirect.  Mr  Hume  assured 
the  House  that  before  the  1831  election  the  voters 
at  Ilchester,  which  he  knew  well,  contracted  debts 
to  the  extent  of  £35  each.  It  was  the  agreed  price. 

The  only  statesman  of  the  time  who  was  moved  to 
any  sincere  resentment  of  this  state  of  things  was 
Lord  John  Russell.  In  1828  he  put  forward  a  motion 
for  the  disfranchisement  of  Penryn  and  East  Ret- 
ford,  and  the  sordid  nature  of  the  system  was  ex- 
posed to  all.  Both  places  had  indulged  in  flagrant 
corruption  for  decades.  Penryn,  a  Cornish  borough 
with  2,324  inhabitants  and  only  140  voters,  was 
under  the  "  patronage  "  of  Lord  de  Dunstanville. 
In  1802,  when  a  rival  to  his  nominee  had  appeared, 
the  list  of  voters  had  grown  mysteriously  during  the 
night  before  the  election.  These  things  were  prime 


94  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

jokes  in  London  clubs  a  hundred  years  ago.  East 
Retford  had  a  thousand  inhabitants  and  140  very 
disputed  voters,  under  the  Duke  of  Newcastle.  For 
sixty  years  before  1802  the  recognised  price  of  a  vote 
had  been  forty  guineas.  At  the  1802  election  the 
price  was  known  to  rise  in  some  cases  as  high  as  150 
guineas.  The  Cabinet  could  come  to  no  unanimous 
decision  what  was  to  be  done  in  these  cases. 

For  some  years  Parliament  had  escaped  a  general 
interest  in  its  peculiar  corruption  because  the  public 
mind  was  absorbed  in  the  question  of  Catholic 
Emancipation.  When  that  question  was  settled,  in 

1829,  the  parliamentary  reformers,  led  by  Russell, 
pressed  their  great  issue  on  the  House  and  the  coun- 
try.    The  agitation  had  still,   at  the  beginning  of 

1830,  only  faint  and  remote  prospects  of  success. 
Whigs  supported  the  Tory  Government  in  resisting 
even  moderate  reforms.     Suddenly  a  great  change 
came    over   the    situation.      George    IV.    died    and 
William   IV.    was   believed    (wrongly)   to   be   more 
favourable     to     progress.       A     second     revolution 
occurred  at  Paris,   and  once  more  the  democratic 
flame  soared  until  its  light  penetrated  all  the  dark 
places  of  Europe.     We  quoted,  a  few  pages  back, 
the   admirably   indignant  language    of  the  Annual 
Register  on  the  corruption  of  our  statesmen.     In  its 
issue  for  the  year  1830  it  uses  a  new  language.    "The 
spirit  ,of  change  is  abroad,  wild  and  indiscriminat- 
ing,"  it  affirms.     "  Nothing  is  easier,"  it  disdain- 
fully tells  the  Radicals,  "  than  to  persuade  men  that 
they  are  entitled  to  that  which  will  gratify  their 
self-pride,   their  vanity,   and  their  love  of  fame." 
This  ludicrous  language  was  the  new  political  dialect. 
But  the  struggle  is  now  opening,  and  we  shall  be- 
come familiar  with  the  accents  of  the  apologists  for 
corruption. 

At  the  general  election  in  the  summer  of  1830  the 
country  registered  a  severe  verdict  on  "  the  Pig 


THE   "GREAT'    REFORM  BILL         95 

Tails,"  as  Daniel  O'Connell  called  the  Tories.  The 
Whigs  did  not  reach  power,  but  wherever  the  elec- 
tions were  comparatively  free,  both  counties  and 
boroughs  went  heavily  against  the  Tories.  This 
lamentable  illustration  of  the  danger  of  free  voting 
merely  increased  their  determination,  and  Welling- 
ton put  into  the  King's  mouth  language  which  for 
months  received  a  popular  reply  in  riots,  arson,  and 
the  wrecking  of  mills.  "  I  am  confident,"  said  the 
King  in  his  speech,  "  that  they  (the  people)  justly 
appreciate  that  happy  form  of  government  under 
which,  through  the  favour  of  Divine  Providence,  this 
country  has  enjoyed  for  a  long  succession  of  years  a 
greater  share  of  internal  peace,  of  commercial  pros- 
perity, of  true  liberty,  of  all  that  constitutes  social 
happiness,  than  has  fallen  to  the  lot  of  any  other 
country  in  the  world."  He  was  determined,  he  said, 
to  "  transmit  these  blessings  unimpaired  to  pos- 
terity." It  was  the  voice  of  Wellington  and  the 
"  old  Tories,"  as  some  modern  Tories — eager  to  dis- 
sociate themselves — put  it.  It  was,  in  fact,  the  only 
sincere  element  in  the  whole  opposition  to  reform. 
When  Wellington  was  challenged  by  Earl  Grey  in 
the  House  of  Lords,  he  said  : 

"  The  country  possesses  at  the  present  moment 
a  legislature  which  answers  all  the  good  purposes 
of  legislation,  and  this  to  a  greater  degree  than  any 
legislature  ever  has  answered  in  any  country  what- 
ever. I  will  go  further  and  say  that  the  legislature 
and  the  system  of  representation  possess  the  full 
and  entire  confidence  of  the  country." 

This,  I  say,  was  quite  sincere ;  because  Wellington 
and  his  colleagues  believed  that  the  sole  aim  of 
Parliament  was  to  protect  property,  and  that  "  the 
country "  meant  the  few  hundred  thousand  who 
possessed  property, 


96  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

More  interesting  to  us  than  this  expiring  type  of 
politician  is  the  conduct  of  the  younger  and  more 
alert  statesmen.  Whig  and  Tory,  who  saw  that  the 
time  for  this  inflexibility  was  over.  In  London 
pamphlets  calling  "  To  Arms "  circulated  freely. 
In  the  provinces  were  seen  banners  with  the  strange 
device,  "Blood  or  Bread."  Wellington's  idea  of 
opposing  his  guards  to  this  advancing  flood  was 
futile.  Politicians  had  reached  the  familiar  second 
stage  in  their  code :  compromise.  Peel,  who  was 
invited  to  replace  Wellington  as  Tory  Premier,  was 
secretly  assured  that  prominent  Whigs  would  sup- 
port him  if  he  cheated  the  popular  demand  by  a 
moderate  measure  of  reform.  Even  Brougham,  the 
idol  of  the  advanced  Whigs,  disavowed  any  inten- 
tion of  pressing  for  a  "radical  sweeping  innovation." 
But  Peel  knew  that  his  party  would  not  yield  any 
reform  which  would  satisfy  the  people,  and  Earl 
Grey  took  the  reins. 

The  psychological  study  of  statesmen  is  usually 
pursued  with  so  inveterate  a  prejudice  that  none  is 
more  genuinely  astonished  at  the  result  of  the 
analysis  than  the  victim  himself,  if  he  be  still  this 
side  the  grave.  The  sympathetic  analyst  discovers 
virtues,  the  critic  discloses  vices,  of  which  the  states- 
man had  no  honest  consciousness  whatever.  Mr 
Lloyd  George  probably  smiles  at  some  of  the 
eulogious  descriptions  of  himself  which  appear,  while 
I  have  no  doubt  that  he  raises  his  eye-brows  in  mild, 
naive  astonishment  at  some  of  the  characterisations 
of  him  which  are  current  in  the  warmer  zones  of  the 
Labour  world.  He  forgets  the  melodramatic  charac- 
terisations of  his  opponents  with  which  he  enter- 
tained the  same  people  not  twenty  years  ago. 

The  statesman  is  a  casuist.  He  does  things  which 
lend  themselves  to  dark  description,  but  the  frame 
of  mind  in  which  he  does  them  is  one,  not  of  villainy, 
but  of  factitious  virtue.  He  has,  as  a  rule,  neither 


THE   "GREAT'    REFORM   BILL         97 

time  nor  disposition  to  analyse  his  own  sentiments. 
Even  where  he  carries  into  public  life,  as  he  rarely 
does,  a  resolute  endeavour  to  stand  well  with  God 
and  the  angels,  he  quickly  develops  an  art  of  auto- 
matically investing  projects  with  a  garment  of  virtue 
which  is  quite  invisible  to  his  opponents  but  quite 
real  to  himself.  The  only  humour  in  Lord  Morley's 
great  biography  of  Gladstone  is  in  the  unconscious 
revelation  of  this  process  during  the  first  twenty 
years  of  his  public  life.  The  wrestles  with  consci- 
ence of  that  classic  athlete  are  entertaining.  Most 
statesmen  attain  the  same  result  more  easily. 

It  is  material  to  impress  this  on  the  reader  when 
we  reach  the  threshold  of  a  century  of  Whig  activity 
which  brings  tears  of  admiration  to  the  eyes  of  some, 
yet  draws  from  others  only  charges  of  gross 
hypocrisy  and  deliberate  deception :  which  is  repre- 
sented, on  the  one  hand,  as  a  low  and  interested 
pander  to  the  crowd  and,  on  the  other,  as  a  systema- 
tic cheating  of  the  people  by  yielding  an  inch  where 
justice  required  a  mile.  The  Reform  Bill  of  1832, 
framed  and  passed  by  the  Whigs,  is  coupled  by 
Liberal  writers  with  Magna  Charta,  or  even  with 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  It  stands  in  our  chil- 
dren's school-manuals  as  one  of  the  most  glorious 
monuments  of  the  struggle  of  light  against  darkness. 
Modern  historians  are  not  so  indulgent.  "  It  was," 
says  the  Honourable  George  Brodrick,  "  the  crown- 
ing merit  of  the  Reform  Act,  from  a  Whig  point  of 
view,  that  it  stayed  the  rising  tide  of  democracy, 
and  raised  a  barrier  against  household  suffrage  and 
the  ballot.  ...  It  was  a  charter  of  political 
rights  for  the  manufacturing  interest  and  the  great 
middle  class,  but  it  did  nothing  for  the  working 
classes  in  town  or  country."*  At  the  time  Daniel 
O'Connell  had  caustically,  and  quite  sincerely,  re- 

*  In  Hunt  and  Poole's  Political  History  of  England,  vol.  xi., 
p.  307. 

G 


98  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

marked  that  it  was  intended  by  the  Whigs  to  give 
them  a  lease  of  Downing  Street  for  many  genera- 
tions. A  more  patient  and  conscientious  critic, 
Molesworth,  says  in  his  History  of  England  (ii.,  51) : 

"  The  Whig  Government,  in  passing  the  Reform 
Bill,  had  deliberately  and  intentionally  maintained 
to  a  great  extent  the  preponderance  which  the 
landed  interest  had  always  enjoyed  by  giving  so 
many  additional  members  to  the  counties  and  by 
consenting  to  allow  so  many  insignificant  boroughs 
in  the  agricultural  districts  to  be  represented  in 
the  House  of  Commons." 

Writers  and  speakers  whose  interest  it  is  to  con- 
sider only  this  aspect  of  the  reform  easily  conclude 
that  Grey  and  Russell  stand  in  the  long  line  of  our 
Machiavellian  statesmen.  The  truth  is,  as  I  said, 
that  the  psychology  of  such  men  is  more  subtle  than 
is  usually  imagined.  It  is  no  more  simple  than  is  the 
psychology  of  their  fiery  Radical  opponents;  just 
as  the  respective  minds  of  the  Duke  of  Newcastle 
and  Mr  Smillie  are  by  no  means  so  simple  in  their 
vice  and  virtue  as  the  average  miner  supposes  to- 
day. Grey  and  Russell  were  sensitive  to  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  system,  and  wanted  reform.  But 
they  were  essentially  and  very  narrowly  limited  by 
the  system,  and  they  determined  to  keep  reform 
within  such  bounds  that  it  should  not  weaken  the 
Whigs  and  assist  the  Radicals.  They  had  only  to 
glance  at  the  ninety  per  cent,  illiteracy  of  the  people 
—which  they  did  next  to  nothing  to  alter — to  dis- 
cover a  most  praiseworthy  reason  for  their  restric- 
tion. 

Grey  included  seven  relatives  of  his  own  in  the 
strong  ministry  which  he  formed.  Most  of  his 
ministers  were  peers  and  large  landowners.  Mr 
Brougham,  the  popular  idol,  virtuously  refused  to 
be  muzzled  by  accepting  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet;  but 


THE   "  GREAT'    REFORM  BILL         99 

he  was  just  as  effectively  brought  into  the  syndicate 
by  an  offer  of  the  Lord  Chancellorship,  which  he 
accepted.  It  was  noticed  how  during  the  next  year 
or  two  Brougham  kept  some  great  scheme  of  reform, 
at  which  he  often  hinted,  "  locked  up  in  his  own 
breast."  Russell  and  a  few  members  of  the  Cabinet 
were  set  to  devise  a  scheme.  Grey  was  no  demo- 
crat. He  expressly  stipulated  for  an  aristocratic 
scheme,  and  the  King  had  good  confidence  in  him. 
Popular  agitators  like  Cobbett  and  Richard  Carlile, 
who  would  warn  people  how  things  were  drifting, 
were  handed  over  to  the  police.  Radical  ideas  of 
ballot,  adult  suffrage,  and  triennial  Parliaments  were 
brushed  aside ;  and  the  electorate  was  neatly 
trimmed  so  as  to  get  rid  of  such  real  corruption  as 
was  of  no  advantage  to  the  Whigs. 

The  scheme  which  Russell  eventually  brought  into 
the  House  was,  in  fact,  more  drastic  than  the  Radi- 
cals (on  whose  vote  it  more  or  less  depended)  had 
expected.  Sixty  boroughs,  returning  119  members, 
were  to  be  disfranchised.  Forty-seven  boroughs 
were  to  lose  one  member.  When  one  recalls  that 
197  members  were  returned  for  places  that  had  less 
than  a  hundred  voters  each,  and  that  154  patrons 
returned  307  members,  the  scheme  seems  modest 
enough.  But  the  Tory  gentlemen  of  England  fell 
upon  it  in  tones  of  quivering  indignation  and  pathetic 
concern  for  the  nation.  Sir  R.  H.  Inglis  laid  it  down 
that  it  was  the  business  of  Members  of  Parliament, 
not  to  represent  the  views  of  constituents,  but  to 
"  consider  the  affairs  of  the  country  and  the  good 
of  the  Church."  As  to  the  "  rotten  "  boroughs, 
they  were  a  providential  part  of  England's  magnifi- 
cent system.  They  enabled  men  of  intellect  and  dis- 
tinction to  fill  the  House  with  "  useful  men," 
unhindered  by  the  mob;  and  some  of  the  most 
eminent  of  British  statesmen  had  entered  the  House 
by  that  avenue.  Peel  took  up  this  apology  for  the 


100  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

rotten  boroughs.  Were  they  disfranchised,  the 
House  would  soon  cease  to  be  "  that  great  arena  of 
talent  and  eloquence  "  which  commanded  the  admi- 
ration of  the  world.  As  to  representation,  it  was 
the  grand  character  of  the  existing  system  that  it 
"  enabled  every  class  in  the  community  to  have  a 
voice  in  the  election  of  members  of  the  House." 
Palmerston,  who  really  cared  nothing  about  reform, 
quietly  reminded  his  aristocratic  friends  that  the 
alternative,  seeing  the  state  of  the  country,  was 
revolution.  But  the  Tories  were  inflexible.  Sir 
C.  Wetherell  said  it  was  a  proposal  of  "  robbery  and 
pillage  "  :  a  very  naive  allusion  to  the  value  of  the 
vote  in  small  boroughs  and  corporations. 

The  Bill  passed  the  second  reading  by  one  vote — 
802  to  301.  Infuriated  Tories  and  representatives 
of  the  corrupt  boroughs  (who  swarmed  about  the 
House)  found  that  the  turning  vote  was  that  of  a 
Tory-traitor,  the  Right  Honourable  John  Calcraft, 
whose  conscience  had  driven  him  into  the  Whig 
lobby.  It  is  on  record  that  he  was  so  persecuted 
that  he  committed  suicide  a  few  months  afterwards. 
But  the  Government  was  beaten  on  committee,  and 
went  to  the  country. 

In  the  ensuing  struggle  for  "  reform  "  every  in- 
strument of  corruption  and  intimidation  was  used, 
as  never  before,  by  both  sides,  and  the  Whigs  re- 
turned with  a  large  majority — and  a  weaker  Bill. 
It  had  a  majority  of  136  votes  on  the  second  reading, 
and  the  House  settled  down  to  one  of  its  historic 
struggles  on  committee.  Lest  any  should  be 
genuinely  misinformed,  the  Government  put  into 
circulation  some  appalling  details  about  the 
boroughs.  Beeralston,  Bossiny,  and  St  Mawe's  each 
had  only  one  ten-pound  householder ;  Dunwich,  Bed- 
win,  and  Castle  Rising  had  two  each;  Aldobrough 
had  three,  Ludgershall  four,  Bletchingley  five,  and 
so  on.  Beeralston  paid  in  taxes  <£3,  9s.  a  year,  and 


THE   "  GREAT  '    REFORM  BILL       101 

Bramber  ,£16  8s  9d.  They  returned  two  members 
each.  Birmingham  paid  £26,968  a  year,  and  Man- 
chester £40,094.  They  had  no  members.  Taxation 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter,  the  Tories  re- 
torted; and  with  the  help  of  the  Irish — who  here 
begin  the  practice  of  selling  England's  birthright 
for  the  promise  of  a  mess  of  Irish  pottage — they 
fought  every  word  of  the  Bill  and  canonised  every 
corrupt  borough  in  Cornwall.  For  forty  nights,  in 
the  heat  of  summer,  they  struggled  eight  hours  a 
night  for  our  "  glorious  constitution."  In  a  fort- 
night Peel  spoke  forty-eight,  and  Wetherell  fifty- 
eight  times.  The  Bill  passed  by  345  to  236  votes. 

"  What  will  the  Lords  do  ?"  It  was  the  question 
of  the  hour,  but  none  for  a  moment  doubted  the 
answer.  They  rejected  the  Bill  by  199  to  158  votes. 
Grey  had  made  a  special  appeal  to  the  bishops  to  act 
justly.  In  reply  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
cheered  by  the  score  of  bishops  behind  him, 
denounced  the  Bill  as  "  mischievous  in  its  tendency 
and  dangerous  to  the  Constitution."  Twenty-one 
bishops  voted  against  it.  There  were  only  two 
schools  in  the  House — Whigs  who  thought  it  a  less 
painful  alternative  to  revolution,  and  Tories  and 
prelates  who  cried  that  it  "  opened  the  floodgates  " 
and  threatened  Church  and  State.  And  this  was  a 
Bill  which  touched  only  86  of  the  rottenest  of  the 
rotten  boroughs,  left  all  the  other  electoral  corrup- 
tion undisturbed,  and  enfranchised  only  half  a 
million  respectable  citizens ! 

What  would  the  people  do,  was  the  next  question. 
It  was  six  in  the  morning  of  October  8th  when  the 
Lords  gave  their  decision.  That  day  London  shop- 
keepers kept  their  shutters  up,  and  there  was  a  run 
on  the  Bank  for  gold.  Here  and  there  a  rotten 
borough  rejoiced.  "  Sudbury,  famous  in  the  annals 
of  corruption,  rang  its  church-bells  and  fired 
cannon."  Over  the  country  generally  fell  the  dark 


:  :    :  ,;THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

shadow  of  approaching  revolution.  Nottingham 
Castle,  the  property  of  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  was 
burned  down.  Bristol  witnessed  days  of  civil  war. 
Meetings  ran  to  crowds  of  200,000  people.  The 
Radical  press  used  language  which  even  an  editor 
in  our  free  age  would  hastily  and  shudderingly  con- 
demn to  the  waste-basket.  The  London  Chronicle 
flayed  "  that  obscene  renegade  Phillpotts "  (the 
Bishop  of  Exeter),  called  the  Queen  a  "  nasty  Ger- 
man frow,"  and  railed  at  the  King's  "  bastards  " 
and  even  "  their  poor,  drivelling  begetter."  "  The 
by-blows  of  a  king  ought  not  to  be  his  body-guard," 
it  roundly  said.  The  next  time  the  King  appeared  in 
London  his  cariage  was  pelted  with  mud.  Bishops 
were  burned  in  effigy,  and  cathedrals  threatened 
with  fouling.  The  workers  grimly  made  pikes  out 
of  iron  bars,  and  drilled  on  the  moors.  The  guards 
sharpened  their  swords  in  the  streets. 

Let  us  not  claim  too  much  virtue  for  the  Whigs. 
England  was  very  near  to  civil  war  in  the  autumn  and 
winter  of  1831 ;  much  nearer  than  seems  to  be  known 
to  those  superficial  folk  who  assure  each  other  that 
Britons,  unlike  Frenchmen,  never  think  of  revolu- 
tion. All  but  the  blind  Tories,  who  would  not  mind 
drowning  '  Radicalism  '  in  blood,  were  terribly  im- 
pressed by  the  omens.  There  must  be  reform.  Lord 
John  Russell  brought  in  a  third  Bill,  little  altered, 
and  it  passed  the  Commons.  We  need  not  linger 
over  the  details.  The  plan  was  mooted  of  creating 
a  sufficient  number  of  new  peers  to  turn  the  majority 
in  the  House  of  Lords.  The  Tories  seem  to  have 
concluded  that  even  Whigs,  who  after  all  were 
English  gentlemen,  would  not  stoop  to  so  revolu- 
tionary a  manoeuvre,  and  six  further  weeks  were 
spent  in  obstruction  and  other  waste  of  time  in  the 
first  quarter  of  1832.  Grey  resigned,  and  the  re- 
doubtable and  stiff-necked  Iron  Duke  assumed  power. 
He  had  soon  to  confess  a  humiliating  failure,  and 


THE   "GREAT'    REFORM  BILL        108 

the  London  mob  used  such  arguments  with  the  King 
that  he  was  terrified  into  submission.  Grey  re- 
sumed office,  as  the  King  now  consented  to  the 
creation  of  new  peers.  Privately,  however,  the  King 
advised  the  Tory  peers  to  withdraw  their  opposition, 
in  order  to  prevent  the  sullying  of  their  high  caste, 
and  a  sufficient  number  .of  them  sullenly  complied. 
The  Bill  passed  the  Lords  by  106  votes  to  22. 

England  was  lit  from  end  to  end  with  bonfires. 
So  thankful  were  our  grandsires  for  small  mercies. 
The  ballot  was  refused.  The  disproportion  of  elect- 
oral districts  was  outrageous.  Hundreds  of  mem- 
bers would  still  sit  for  constituencies  which  escaped 
destruction  only  because  Whig  had  an  equal  interest 
in  them  with  Tory.  Bribery  and  corruption  were 
untouched.  Intimidation  was  as  free  as  ever.  Less 
than  a  million  out  of  six  million  adults  had  a  share 
in  choosing  their  legislators.  The  Lords  could  still 
annul  any  decision  of  the  Commons,  and  the  King 
could  set  at  naught  both  of  them.  It  had  taken  a 
grave  threat  of  civil  war  to  win  so  much.  But  the 
country  rejoiced.  From  the  slopes  of  Pisgah  Grey 
and  Russell  and  Brougham  announced  to  the  people 
the  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey  which  was  to 
reward  their  centuries  in  the  desert.  Once  more  to 
the  polls,  on  the  new  franchise,  and  the  golden  era 
of  social  legislation  would  open.  Let  us  coldly  and 
judiciously  survey  its  achievements.  It  means  a 
new  chapter  in  the  evolution  of  our  politicians. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   "  REFORMED  "   PARLIAMENT 

THE  general  election  which  was  held  in  1832  made 
little  difference  in  the  relative  strength  of  parties  in 
the  House  of  Commons.  There  are  historians  who 
affect  some  surprise  at  this,  but  we  have  seen  that 
it  was  precisely  the  result  expected,  if  not  designed. 
The  Whigs,  who  were  already  in  a  majority,  slightly 
increased  in  number.  The  enlarged  county- vote 
favoured  the  land-owners,  Whig  and  Tory,  and  in 
the  towns  corruption  was  more  rampant  than  ever. 
It  was  so  gross  that  the  House  of  Commons  was 
compelled  to  pass  sentence  of  disfranchisement  on 
Liverpool,  Stafford,  Warwick,  Hertford  and  Carrick 
Fergus.  But  the  Lords  helped  their  friends  out  of 
this  little  difficulty.  They  found  that  there  had  been 
no  bribery,  and  the  most  glaring  examples  yet  known 
escaped  punishment.  In  sum,  a  solid  majority  of 
Whigs  confronted  an  unstable  minority  of  150 
"  Conservatives  "  and  190  Radicals,  Irish  members, 
and  free  lances.  The  name  "  Conservative  "  had 
lately  been  introduced  and  found  favour. 

But,  although  the  struggle  over  the  Reform  Bill 
had  sharpened  afresh  the  antagonism  of  Whig  and 
Tory,  the  real  note  on  both  sides  of  the  House  was 
conservatism.  The  Whigs  had  discovered  a  new 
phrase.  There  were  to  be  no  more  "  organic 
changes."  The  strain  upon  the  British  Constitution 
of  cutting  out  a  few  score  boroughs  and  burgages 
which  were  an  utter  disgrace,  and  enfranchising  a 
few  tens  of  thousands  of  ten-pound  householders — 

104 


THE    "  REFORMED"    PARLIAMENT    105 

quite  substantial  folk  in  those  days — was  so  severe 
that  the  noble  lords  who  ran  the  country  could 
not  contemplate  any  further  interference  with  the 
system  of  representation.  The  Radicals,  with  pain- 
ful memories  of  the  evils  of  the  last  election,  pressed 
for  the  ballot.  The  Government  refused  to  hear  of 
it,  and  Mr  Grote,  the  Benthamite,  brought  in  a  Bill. 
Lord  Althorp,  the  Whig  leader,  genially  represented 
to  the  House  (while  a  larger  number  than  ever  of 
petitions  for  coruption  and  intimidation  awaited  in- 
vestigation) that  the  Reform  Act  had  substantially 
put  an  end  to  these  evils,  and  the  remaining  dis- 
orders were  negligible.  Peel  went  farther  than  his 
Right  Honourable  friend,  urging  that  the  House  of 
Commons  was  already  too  democratic.  The  Bill  was 
rejected  by  211  votes  to  106.  Year  after  year,  for 
forty  years,  grave-minded  men  would  urge  this  ele- 
mentary reform  of  electoral  procedure  on  the  House, 
and  not  a  single  eminent  politician  on  either  side 
would  listen  to  them.  All  of  them  knew — Grey  and 
Russell  and  Palmerston,  as  well  as  Peel  and  Derby 
and  Disraeli — that  the  open  vote  meant  bribery  and 
intimidation. 

The  Radicals  pressed  for  triennial,  instead  of 
septennial  Parliaments.  Mr  Tennyson  brought  for- 
ward a  motion,  and  again  the  Government  used  its 
influence  to  prevent  the  reform.  It  was  now  un- 
necessary, they  said.  One  must  "  give  a  trial  "  to 
the  great  reform  they  had  just  effected.  And  so  on. 
As  to  abolishing  the  property-qualification  for  Mem- 
bers of  Parliament,  extending  the  vote  to  all  house- 
holders, reforming  the  House  of  Lords,  etc^  Whig 
and  Tory  scoffed  at  these  Radical  delusions.  The 
revolutionary  movement  on  the  continent  had  again 
subsided,  and  there  was  no  grave  pressure.  You 
must  not  mend  your  house  during  a  hurricane  :  you 
need  not  mend  it  when  the  weather  is  good.  The 
Radicals,  utterly  disgusted  with  this  philosophy, 


106  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

sick  from  the  frustration  of  their  great  hopes  of 
1832,  were  in  furious  and  helpless  opposition  before 
the  end  of  1833.  The  Birmingham  Union,  the  great 
centre  of  reform  in  those  days,  prayed  the  King  to 
dismiss  his  ministers,  as  they  were  either  unable  or 
unwilling  to  carry  out  the  work  of  reform. 

Seeing  that  the  Radicals  then  pressed  merely  for 
reforms  which  seem  even  to  the  modern  Conserva- 
tive obvious  and  elementary,  this  language  will  be 
to  many  unintelligible.  Is  it  not  notorious  that  the 
Reformed  Parliament  at  once  addressed  itself  to  a 
constructive  program  which  changed  the  face  of 
England  ?  What  about  that  long  list  of  glorious 
measures  which  adorns  the  pages  of  political  his- 
torians and  flows  admiringly  from  the  lips  of  our 
teachers  ? 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  many  measures  of 
great  importance  were  passed,  and  it  would  be 
equally  ungenerous  and  unjust  to  regard  such  states- 
men as  Russell,  Grey  and  Brougham  as  insensible 
to  the  grave  injustices  of  the  time  until  a  forest  of 
pikes  appeared  on  the  political  horizon.  They 
abolished  colonial  slavery,  made  considerable  im- 
provements in  the  administration  of  justice,  regu- 
lated the  labour  of  children,  reformed  municipal 
government,  greatly  reduced  the  infliction  of  capital 
punishment,  reduced  the  tax  on  papers  and  did 
something  for  education.  But  these  things  must  be 
considered  relatively  to  the  times,  and  one  then  per- 
ceives that  the  measures  were  a  totally  inadequate 
and  partly  a  reluctant  alleviation  of  a  state  of  things 
that  ought  to  have  inspired  any  statesman  with  a 
"  sacred  madness  "  for  reform. 

Take  the  position  of  the  children  of  England.  It 
is  well  known  how,  at  the  introduction  of  the 
factory-system,  every  child  in  the  manufacturing 
districts,  down  to  the  age  of  five  or  six,  was  drafted 
into  it  and  driven  like  a  slave.  When  these  did  not 


THE    "REFORMED"    PARLIAMENT    107 

suffice  to  build  up  the  fortunes  of  cotton-spinners, 
the  workhouses  of  the  kingdom  were  emptied  and 
tumbrils  rolled  northward  from  all  parts  with  their 
loads  of  orphans  and  illegitimates.  No  one  cared 
what  became  of  them.  There  were  no  restrictions 
on  hours  of  labour  or  forms  of  punishment,  no  sani- 
tary regulations,  no  responsibility  for  accidents,  no 
inspectors.  The  whole  country  knew  that  colonial 
slavery  was  hardly  worse  than  the  condition  of  the 
children  of  England.  In  1831  the  House  appointed 
a  Select  Committee  to  investigate  the  matter,  and 
its  report  was  circulated  in  1832.  It  is  one  of  the 
most  horrible  documents,  one  of  the  most  ghastly 
indictments,  that  it  is  possible  to  read.  Yet  the 
Government  proposed  to  do  nothing.  The  manu- 
facturers were  its  friends;  and  therefore  interfer- 
ence with  the  free  play  of  economic  laws  on  the 
labour-market,  or  with  private  rights  of  property, 
was  a  very  undesirable  thing.  When  humanitarians 
pressed,  Lord  Althorp  at  first  refused  them  Govern- 
ment assistance.  The  evils  were,  however,  too 
ironical  in  face  of  the  zeal  to  abolish  slavery  abroad, 
and  a  measure  was  passed.  What  did  it  do  ?  It 
reduced  the  hours  of  children  between  the  ages  of 
nine  and  thirteen  to  forty-eight  hours  a  week,  and 
of  youths  and  maidens  below  the  age  of  eighteen  to 
sixty-nine  hours  a  week ! 

Reformers  pressed  for  the  education  of  children, 
and  this  was  the  obvious  remedy  for  the  prevailing 
coarseness  as  well  as — we  now  know — a  means  of 
enriching  the  country.  Considerably  more  than  half 
the  children  (not  the  population)  of  England  still 
received  no  education  at  all,  and  the  education  of 
the  majority  of  the  other  half  was  a  comedy.  The 
State  paid  not  one  penny  for  the  work.  "  There  is," 
said  one  of  the  rare  liberal  prelates  of  the  time, 
"  no  record  of  any  people  on  earth  so  highly  civil- 
ised, so  abounding  in  arts  and  comforts,  and  so 


108  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

grossly  and  generally  ignorant,  as  the  English." 
There  was  no  contemporary  nation  so  rich  and  able 
to  grant  it  as  England.  The  Government,  partly  to 
oblige  capitalists  who  wanted  every  hour  of  the 
children's  time  and  partly  in  obedience  to  the 
jealousy  of  the  clergy,  refused  to  interfere.  When 
at  length  they  were  shamed  into  doing  something, 
they  awarded  an  annual  grant — three-fourths  of 
which  went  to  the  Church — of  £20,000  a  year! 
Prussia,  with  a  far  smaller  population  and  infinitely 
less  wealth,  was  then  spending  £600,000  a  year  on 
its  schools. 

It  was  the  same  with  the  administration  of  justice. 
The  jails  were  squalid  and  filthy  beyond  description. 
The  penal  law  was  barbaric,  and  the  courts  were 
often  atrocious.  In  1833  a  well-known  humanitarian 
witness  was  driven  with  scorn  out  of  court  (and 
an  innocent  man  condemned  for  lack  of  witnesses) 
by  a  London  magistrate  because  the  hostile  bar- 
rister chose  to  describe  him  as  an  unbeliever.  All 
over  the  country  squire-magistrates  imposed  the 
most  savage  sentences  for  trifling  thefts,  and 
treated  the  people  as  dogs,  or  less  respectfully  than 
they  treated  their  dogs.  Reformers  had  pointed 
out  the  barbarism  and  stupidity  of  the  system  for 
forty  years.  Only  its  most  glaring  faults  were 
modified  by  the  Reformed  Parliament. 

The  Parliament  lasted  only  two  years,  when  the 
game  of  Ins  and  Outs  was  vigorously  resumed.  It 
was  believed  that  there  was  a  Tory  reaction  in  the 
country,  and  the  King  gladly  received  the  resignation 
of  the  Whigs.  The  country  was,  indeed,  disgusted, 
and,  in  spite  of  the  customary  Whig  circus-parade 
of  "  the  great  measures  they  had  put  on  the  statute- 
book,"  their  strength  was  reduced  at  the  1835 
election.  The  election  itself  was  an  eloquent  com- 
mentary on  their  plea  that  no  further  "  organic 
changes  "  were  needed.  Bribery  passed  all  previous 


THE    "REFORMED"    PARLIAMENT    109 

records.  The  Maidstone  Gazette  (August  1st,  1837) 
tells  us  that  Wyndham  Lewis  spent  £6000  in  secur- 
ing 529  votes  at  Maidstone.  At  Stafford  852  out  of 
1049  electors  were  bribed.  Corruption  was  general 
and  notorious.  No  less  than  sixty-seven  election- 
petitions  were  returned  to  the  House.  But  the 
balance  of  parties  was  so  nearly  equal  that  neither 
side  would  lose  a  seat,  and  the  customary  machinery 
for  absolving  delinquents  was  used.  Such  petitions 
were  then  tried  by  committees  chosen  from  the 
House,  and  the  committees  were  chosen  with  care. 
One  knew  the  verdict  as  soon  as  the  list  of  names 
was  published.  Daniel  O'Connell,  who  now  worked 
with  the  Radicals,  bluntly  accused  the  absolving 
members  of  admitting  "  foul  perjury."  The  Radi- 
cals tried  to  get  the  power  of  adjudging  petitions 
transferred  to  the  law-courts,  but  the  leading  states- 
men found  the  proposal  a  reflection  on  the  integrity 
of  members  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

The  stately  procession  of  reform-measures  con- 
tinued under  Melbourne,  the  new  Premier,  and  the 
Tories  made  melodramatic  forecasts  of  ruin  and 
revolution.  The  education-grant  was  raised,  after 
a  furious  struggle,  to  .£30,000  a  year.  The  death- 
sentence  for  sheep-stealing  and  coining  and  similar 
crimes  was  abolished.  The  penny-post  was  estab- 
lished. Although,  when  Radicals  moved  for  a 
further  extension  of  the  franchise,  Whigs  united  with 
Tories  and  crushed  them  with  a  weight  of  509  votes 
to  20,  the  Tories  used  such  language  against  the 
Government  that  there  arose  a  situation  almost 
unique  in  English  history.  It  was  darkly  rumoured 
that  the  Tories  were  conspiring  against  the  throne, 
and  O'Connell  chivalrously  offered  the  young  Queen, 
who  had  just  acceded  to  the  throne,  an  army  of 
500,000  Irishmen  to  defend  her.  How  little  they 
knew  Queen  Victoria !  "  The  industrial  and  the 
social  evolution,"  says  so  little  Radical  an  historian 


110  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

as  Mr  Sidney  Low,  "  went  on  almost  unnoticed  by 
statesmen  and  politicians  absorbed  in  the  party- 
controversies."  * 

The  condition  of  England  was  growing  serious. 
Seven  years  of  glorious  Whig  legislation,  under  the 
banner  of  Reform,  were  ending  in — "  the  Hungry 
Forties."  The  rich,  through  the  growth  of  machinery 
and  the  capitalisation  of  industry,  became  richer 
every  decade.  The  poor  became  poorer.  Consump- 
tion sank,  and  the  disordered  and  clumsy  finances 
showed  a  deficit  of  several  millions  every  year.  Un- 
easy at  the  mood  of  the  country,  the  Whigs  tried 
an  ."  organic  change  ";  one  that  would  be  for  their 
own  advantage  at  the  approaching  election.  They 
would  alter  the  franchise  so  as  to  secure  a  larger 
Irish  support.  They  were  compelled  to  withdraw 
this,  and  they  then  sought  to  alleviate  distress,  and 
conciliate  Radicals,  by  a  fixed  duty  on  corn. 

The  election  was  one  of  the  liveliest  and  most 
inebriating  on  record.  Liberals — as  they  now  called 
themselves — made  a  banner  of  the  Big  Loaf  and  the 
Little  Loaf,  and  eloquently  recited  the  long  list  of 
their  measures.  Conservatives — they  now  positively 
disclaimed  the  odious  name  of  Tories — called  upon 
the  land-owners  to  wreck  this  new  threat  to  agri- 
culture, on  the  manufacturers  to  smite  for  all  time 
these  meddlers  with  their  business,  on  the  country 
generally  to  save  itself  from  revolution.  Corn-Law 
Abolitionists  were  now  added  to  the  din.  Without 
taking  a  single  penny  out  of  the  pockets  of  the 
wealthy  it  was  possible  to  relieve  the  distress  of  the 
poor  by  abolishing  protection.  Chartists  swarmed 
in  the  towns  and  flourished  the  famous  six  points 
(the  ballot,  manhood  suffrage,  annual  parliaments, 
equal  electoral  districts,  the  payment  of  members 
and  the  abolition  of  the  property-qualification) 

*  Hunt  and  Poole's  Political  History  of  England,  vol.  xii., 
p.  24. 


THE    "REFORMED"    PARLIAMENT    111 

which  were  to  destroy  corruption  for  ever  and  really 
inaugurate  the  millenium. 

One  gets  tired  of  repeating,  although  it  is  histori- 
cally true,  that  bribery  and  corruption  were  worse 
than  ever.  The  authoritative  record  is :  "  The 
recent  election  had  been  attended  by  more  corrup- 
tion than  ever.  .  .  .  New  forms  of  bribery  and  cor- 
ruption had  been  introduced."  It  is  an  historic  fact 
that  electoral  corruption  increased  after  1832,  yet 
legislators  refused  for  decades  to  interfere  with  it. 
Roebuck  pointed  out  in  the  House  that  many  peti- 
tions had  been  corruptly  compromised :  a  familiar 
method  of  "  pairing."  A  Parliamentary  Committee 
had  to  report  that  he  was  right,  and  named  six 
boroughs  for  disfranchisement.  "  But,"  says  Moles- 
worth,  "  the  persons  interested  in  preventing  further 
proceedings  were  so  numerous  "  that  nothing  was 
done,  except  the  chastisement  of  one  very  flagrant 
borough  and  a  mild  and  innocuous  measure  against 
certain  forms  of  corruption. 

Lord  Morley's  biography  of  Gladstone  is  not  a 
critical  exposure  of  the  dark  ways  of  politicians,  but 
here,  as  in  many  other  places,  it  corrects  those  who 
imagine  that  corruption  was  confined  to  a  few  per- 
sons and  places.  It  was  at  the  election  of  1832  that 
Gladstone  descended  into  the  political  arena.  He 
was,  in  mood  and  temperament,  a  High-Church 
curate  whom  an  ambitious  father  had  diverted  from 
the  narrow  path  of  virtue  into  the  broad  road  of 
politics.  Under  the  patronage  of  the  Duke  of  New- 
castle, who  only  three  years  before  had  evicted 
forty  families  "  for  the  outrage  of  voting  against  his 
nominee,"  he  stood  for  "  the  rather  rotten  borough  " 
of  Newark.  Lord  Morley  does  his  best  for  his  friend 
and  hero ;  and  indeed  it  is  the  peculiar  value  of  this 
illustration  that  it  relates  to  the  highest-minded 
statesman  who  ever  governed  England.  We  are 
assured  that  Gladstone  did  not  know  at  the  time 


112  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

how  his  eloquence  was  supplemented  by  "  darker 
agencies."  Some  things  he  knew  and  resented.  He 
poured  out  righteous  indignation  when  he  heard 
that  special  constables  were  not  to  be  had  because 
every  man  in  the  town  was  drunk,  and  that  "  a  cer- 
tain proportion  of  the  voters  could  not  be  got  to 
the  poll  without  a  breakfast,"  including  intoxica- 
tion. He  did  not  know  apparently,  that  the  band- 
men,  mostly  Reds  (Tories),  were  paid  fifteen  shillings 
a  day  (an  artizan's  wage  for  a  week)  for  several  days. 
He  knew  it  all  when  his  expenses,  which  he  had 
strictly  limited  to  a  thousand  pounds,  were  returned 
at  more  than  two  thousand.  And  the  point  of  the 
matter  is  that  "  the  fierce  battle  [against  his  agents] 
lasted  over  many  of  the  thirteen  years  of  his  con- 
nection." That  is  to  say,  corruption  was  used  in 
his  cause  at  later  elections.  It  is  worse  to  reflect 
that  it  was  more  than  half  a  century  before  he  used 
his  great  power  to  pass  a  measure  against  the  cor- 
ruption he  knew  so  well  (1883).* 

I  am  tempted  to  glance  at  another  page  of  Lord 
Morley's  work  which  concerns  this  year,  1841, 
which  we  have  reached,  and  reflects  a  correspondingly 
low  standard  in  the  House  itself  (in  which  Glad- 
stone already  held  a  high  position).  The  Govern- 
ment was  holding  on  in  the  face  of  defeat  for  the 
sheer  purpose  of  completing  its  meretricious  appeal 
to  the  constituencies.  Peel  and  the  Tories  fought 
just  as  vigorously  to  get  them  out  before  that  appeal 
was  completed.  It  came  to  a  division  of  a  sensa- 
tional character  in  which,  it  was  at  first  rumoured, 
the  votes  were  equal.  The  Liberals  then  brought  in, 
in  a  chair,  a  member  who  was  "  reported  to  be  in 
a  state  of  total  idiocy,"  "  and  was  evidently  in  total 
unconsciousness  of  what  was  proceeding  "  (says  Mr 
Gladstone  himself).  This  man,  "  less  human  even 
than  an  automaton,"  was  borne  through  the  crowd 

*  Life  of  Gladstone,  i.,  pp.  91-97 


THE    "REFORMED"    PARLIAMENT    113 

of  members  and  added  to  the  Liberal  vote.  Glad- 
stone's only  comment  is :  "  Upon  looking  back  I 
am  sorry  to  think  how  much  I  partook  in  the  excite- 
ment that  prevailed ;  but  how  could  it  be  otherwise 
in  so  extraordinary  a  case  ?  "  There  are  other 
peculiar  consciences  besides  the  Nonconformist.  A 
little  less  Thomas  a  Kempis,  and  a  little  more 
Benthamism,  would  have  been  better  for  Eng- 
land. 

I  am  not  writing  a  political  history  of  England, 
and  will  confine  myself  to  two  points  in  the  Tory 
rule  of  the  next  five  years.  The  women  and  children 
of  England  now  had  a  passionate  and  singular 
champion  in  Lord  Shaftesbury,  a  man  whose  reform- 
ing fervour  along  one  line  was  accompanied  by 
extraordinary  prejudices  along  others.  He  painted 
for  Parliament  so  harrowing,  yet  indisputable,  a 
picture  of  the  horrors  of  woman  and  child  life  in  the 
mines  that  even  the  most  hardened  politician  shud- 
deringly  consented  to  reform.  At  least,  Lord 
Londonderry  alone,  a  large  mine-owner,  had  the 
effrontery  to  mumble  the  customary  phrases  about 
rights  of  property.  The  philanthropic  Earl  was  less 
fortunate  in  pressing  for  the  education  of  children. 
His  description  of  child-depravity,  his  revelation 
that  there  were  still  in  England  1,014,193  children 
receiving  no  education  whatever,  moved  the  Cabinet 
to  frame  a  measure  to  provide  some  schooling  of 
factory-children,  but  it  was  lost  in  the  acrimonious 
struggle  of  Church  and  Chapel  for  the  "  souls  "  of 
the  youngsters. 

He  then,  in  1844,  pressed  a  Bill  for  reducing  the 
work-hours  of  women  and  children  in  factories  to 
ten  per  day  (six  days  a  week).  Sir  J.  Graham,  the 
Government  spokesman,  suavely  regretted  that  he 
must  insist  on  "  ten  "  being  changed  into  "  twelve  " 
(for  children  down  to  the  age  of  thirteen  and  mar- 
ried women).  He  "  felt  much  pain,"  but,  after  all, 
H 


114  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

it  was  "  a  question  of  degree  rather  than  of  prin- 
ciple." (It  was  really  a  question  of  the  employers 
of  factory-labour  being  immensely  more  numerous 
and  important  to  the  Whigs  than  the  employers  of 
children  in  mines.)  Shaftesbury  had  been  taunted 
with  the  fact  that,  while  he  laboured  so  zealously 
for  industrial  workers,  the  labourers  on  his  father's 
estates  in  Dorsetshire  were  little  better  than  serfs, 
and  he  had  fallen  back  upon  their  healthier  condi- 
tions. Sir  J.  Graham,  Gladstone's  colleague,  " would 
not  examine  into  the  question  of  comparative  salub- 
rity as  between  agricultural  and  manufacturing  in- 
dustry." The  hours  must  be  twelve  per  day.  John 
Bright,  now  a  power  in  the  House,  more  gravely 
supported  the  Tory  sentence  on  the  women  and 
children  of  England.  He  reminded  members  of 
"  the  high  wages,  and  general  prosperity  and  com- 
fort, of  the  manufacturing  population."  I  have 
spoken  with  Lancashire  women  who  were  girls  in 
the  mill  in  those  days.  From  cellar-homes  in  the 
dingy  suburbs  of  Manchester  they  were  driven  at 
five  in  the  morning  to  the  distant  mill.  On  winter 
mornings  the  cold  was  so  piercing  that  they  at  times 
ate  their  scanty  dinner  on  the  way  to  the  mill. 
They  struggled  wearily  through  the  day  without 
food,  and  toiled  home  too  tired  to  do  more  than  eat 
a  little  bread  and  fat  and  fling  themselves,  as  they 
were,  on  what  they  called  beds — until  five  in  the 
morning.  They  shall  have  twelve  hours  a  day  of  it, 
said  the  House,  Whig  and  Tory.  Cotton-spinners 
were  formidable  folk  to  interfere  with. 

The  new  school  of  politicians,  the  Manchester 
school,  was,  as  is  well  known,  strongly  opposed  to 
these  vital  reforms.  I  have  said  that  the  mind  of 
the  politician  is  peculiarly  subtle  and  casuistic. 
When  we  find  Lord  Morley,  in  a  more  than  sym- 
pathetic study  of  the  most  genuinely  Puritan  of 
them  all,  continually  asking  us  to  use  a  large  charity 


THE    «  REFORMED"    PARLIAMENT    115 

in  surveying  the  careers  of  politicians,  this  state- 
ment will  not  seem  excessive.  Indeed,  the  lawyer 
or  the  man  of  business  may  justly  plead  that  the 
politician  is  no  more  entitled  to  leniency  than  he, 
but  may  not  implausibly  be  subjected  to  an  even 
more  rigorous  judgment  on  account  of  the  further- 
reaching  consequences  of  his  conduct.  In  the  particu- 
lar matter  that  concerns  us  here  such  a  plea  is  especi- 
ally forcible.  Industrial  England  was  foul  beyond 
words  right  up  to,  if  not  far  beyond,  the  middle  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  The  hours  and  conditions  of 
labour,  the  squalor  and  ignorance  and  burdens  of 
the  workers,  the  disparity  of  wage  and  rent  on 
capital,  were  outrageous.  We  are  taking  a  broad 
human  and  entirely  just  view  when  we  insist  that 
these  early  Victorian  statesmen  must  be  judged  by 
the  England  over  which  they  presided.  Their  omis- 
sions, nay,  then*  active  hindrance  of  reform,  are 
then  seen  to  be  enormously  larger  than  their  achieve- 
ments ;  and  the  moral  temper  which  we  find  at  the 
root  of  their  omissions  and  obstructions  reflects  the 
enduring  taint  of  our  political  world. 

Bright  and  Cobden  at  least  hated  the  party- 
system,  which  was  responsible  for  so  much  of  the 
evil.  When  Peel  began  to  break  with  the  inveterate 
protectionist  tradition  of  the  Conservative  party,  in 
abolishing  the  Corn  Law,  Cobden  passionately  urged 
him  to  wreck  the  party-system.  "  Let  us  have  an 
end  of  this  juggle  of  parties,  this  mere  representa- 
tion of  tradition,"  he  said.  Without  cynicism,  we 
may  reflect  that  the  party-system  had  thwarted  Cob- 
den's  aim  for  ten  years.  But  in  founding  a  "school," 
instead  of  a  party  (if  there  is  any  difference), 
Cobden  and  Bright  rendered  a  similar  disservice. 
Whether  or  no  the  Liberal  tradition  which  they 
established  of  excessive  economy  in  defence  has  not 
cost  us  in  the  long  run  a  hundred  millions  for  every 
million  it  saved,  on  the  industrial  side  the  policy  of 


116  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

laissez-faire  prolonged  the  horrors  of  the  workers 
for  two  generations,  planted  the  seeds  of  a  terrible 
conflict,  and  is  shown  by  the  logic  of  events  to  have 
been  from  the  first  an  academic  superstition.  It 
has  the  even  worse  aspect  that  it  filled  the  pockets 
of  the  rich  and  kept  empty  the  pockets  of  the  poor. 
It  kept  the  sunshine  in  comparatively  small  areas 
of  the  national  life. 

This,  however,  was  no  deliberate  aim,  however 
much  it  may  have  been  a  subconscious  or  semi-con- 
scious impulse,  in  Cobden  and  Bright.  For  them 
the  abolition  of  the  Corn  Law  was  the  -first  expedient 
in  a  struggle  that  has  become  familiar :  how  to  put 
a  little  more  in  the  pockets  of  the  workers  without 
taking  any  from  the  pockets  of  the  masters.  The 
fascination  of  the  plan  began  to  dawn  on  Peel  and 
Gladstone.  Then  came  the  terrible  potato-blight 
and  famine,  sending  the  scale  down  with  a  bang. 
"  This  memorable  session  of  1846,"  says  Lord  Mor- 
ley,  referring  to  the  Tory  adoption  of  free  trade  in 
corn,  "  was  not  a  session  of  argument,  but  of  lobby 
computations."  Parliament  was  interested  (while 
the  country  starved)  in  "  the  play  of  forces,  the 
working  of  high  motives  and  low,  the  balance  of 
parties,  the  secret  ambitions  and  antagonism  of 
persons."  Peel  plunged,  and  wrecked  the  Tory 
party;  though  the  unfailing  providence  that  pre- 
sides over  politics  had  already  supplied  an  astute 
and  entirely  unscrupulous  leader,  one  Benjamin 
Disraeli,  who  would  salvage  the  wreck. 

Peel  fell,  and  the  Whigs  came  in.  At  once,  in 
1846,  a  new  Bill  for  the  reform  of  the  industrial 
world  was  introduced.  Cobden  opposed  it,  and  the 
House  gladly  adopted  his  plea  to  wait  and  see  if 
the  beneficent  abolition  of  the  Corn  Law  would 
not  do  all  that  was  needed.  In  1847  Mr  Fielden, 
a  humane  Oldham  manufacturer,  brought  the  House 
back  to  the  question  of  the  women  and  children.  He 


THE    "REFORMED"    PARLIAMENT    117 

poured  bald  statistical  facts  upon  his  colleagues. 
Manchester,  with  a  population  of  163,856,  had  nearly 
6000  deaths  a  year,  and  of  these  one  fourth  were 
deaths  of  children  of  less  than  five  years  of  age. 
Liverpool  was  as  bad.  Their  homes  were  abomin- 
able. Their  sufferings  from  disease  and  death  were 
terrible.  Their  vices  alone  flourished.  He  asked 
a  modest  improvement :  twelve  hours  a  day,  includ- 
ing two  for  meals,  on  five  days,  and  eight  on  Satur- 
days, for  children  between  the  ages  of  thirteen  and 
eighteen.  In  short,  a  ten  hours  day,  or  fifty-eight 
hours  a  week,  of  actual  work  for  children !  If  our 
politicians  were  not  so  blinded  by  their  party-game, 
they  would  see  that  our  purblind  Education  Depart- 
ment, instead  of  cramming  into  children's  heads 
long  lists  of  Saxon  princes  and  wars  and  other  rub- 
bish, taught  them  how  different  England  was  even 
seventy  years  ago.  There  would  be  much  less 
"  bite  "  in  Bolshevist  oratory. 

The  House  was  "  appalled,"  we  are  told,  by  the 
figures,  which  were  read  from  official  publications, 
and  passed  the  second  reading.  In  plain  English, 
only  87  members  had  the  courage  to  vote  against 
it,  but  only  195  had  the  courage  to  vote  for  it  I 
The  committee  stage  was  instructive.  Hume  and 
Bright  sternly  opposed  the  Bill  in  the  sacred  name 
of  political  economy.  Sir  Robert  Peel,  for  his  party, 
opposed  it  in  the  not  less  august  name  of  property. 
"  You  are,"  he  said,  in  a  passage  of  singular  can- 
dour, "  giving  these  classes  intellectual  improve- 
ment; and  unless  you  can  remove  every  law  incon- 
sistent with  that  intelligence,  the  institutions  of  the 
country  will  be  in  danger."  Being  a  gentleman,  he 
was,  of  course,  anxious  to  improve  the  lot  of  the 
people;  but  not  this  way.  He  did  not  suggest  a 
way.  In  the  end,  he  boldly  posed  as  a  champion 
of  the  workers.  He  knew  of  hundreds  of  working 
men  who  had,  with  the  aid  of  their  children's  wages, 


118  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

made  small  fortunes.  In  the  name  of  justice  he 
demanded  that  this  right  be  not  taken  from  them. 
The  Whig  case  was  stated,  neatly,  by  Sir  George 
Grey.  On  the  maxim,  which  Gladstone  formulated 
years  afterwards,  that  Liberal  wisdom  is  "to  blunt 
the  edge  of  a  grievance,"  he  urged  that  "ten  hours" 
be  changed  to  "  eleven  hours."  In  the  Lords, 
Brougham,  the  reformer,  surpassed  his  oratorical 
record  in  denouncing  the  Bill.  He  was  in  such 
deadly  earnest,  the  country  was  in  such  positive 
danger  of  "  ruin  "  from  the  Bill,  that  he  opened 
with  an  invocation  of  "  divine  assistance  "  in  pul- 
verising it.  But  the  workers  of  England  were  now 
alive  and  alert.  Chartism  and  Owenism  grew 
amazingly.  The  Bill  passed. 

On  the  strength  of  this  great  legislation  the 
Liberals  came  back  from  the  polls  with  an  increased 
majority  in  1847.  For  a  time  it  looked  as  if  they 
were  going  to  do  great  things.  The  change  was,  of 
course,  in  their  environment.  The  flames  of  revolu- 
tion shot  up  once  more  at  Paris.  The  Chartists 
made  the  blood  of  London  run  cold.  But  the  fires 
died  down  quickly  and  harmlessly,  and  the  party- 
game  proceeded  comfortably.  Russell  settled  down 
to  doing  next  to  nothing,  and  Disraeli  settled  down 
to  an  attitude  of  vigilance  in  case  he  imprudently 
ventured  to  attempt  something.  Radicals  brought 
in  their  almost  annual  motions  or  Bills  for  parlia- 
mentary reform — the  ballot,  the  abolition  of  the 
window-tax,  etc.,  and  the  government  suavely 
murdered  the  infants.  Cobden  pressed  the  cause  of 
naval  economy  and  of  arbitration.  Others  advo- 
cated marriage  with  a  deceased  wife's  sister,  and 
others  a  reduction  of  the  scandalous  salaries  of  ser- 
vants of  the  Crown.  They  were  all  conducted  to  the 
lethal  chamber.  The  country  was  again  in  great 
distress.  The  golden  age  had  churlishly  refused  to 
come  at  the  command  of  the  Manchester  magicians. 


THE    "REFORMED"    PARLIAMENT    119 

Russell  wearily  handed  over  the  reins,  and  there 
was  a  Coalition. 

Few  periods  in  the  history  of  the  party-system 
are  more  lamentable  than  that  immediately  before 
and  during  the  Crimean  War;  into  which,  indeed, 
we  notoriously  drifted  through  lack  of  firm  and  wise 
statesmanship.  Yet  there  was  far  more  ability  in 
Westminster  than  there  is  to-day,  and  there  was 
never  less  real  party-antagonism.  For  a  time 
Disraeli  had  kept  together  the  main  body  of  the 
Conservatives,  apart  from  the  Peelites,  on  a  pro- 
tectionist platform.  That  failed,  and  it  is  ludicrous 
to  read  how  the  rival  politicians  strove  to  create 
rival  programs.  The  situation  was  a  miserable 
struggle  of  statesmen  for  office,  complicated  by  a 
dread  of  the  practical  measures  which  the  state  of 
the  country  would  demand.  The  reader  must  glance 
at  the  biography  of  any  statesman  of  the  time- 
Russell,  Derby,  Aberdeen,  Palmerston,  Graham, 
Gladstone,  Landsdowne,  Newcastle  or  Disraeli.  The 
time  is  a  maze  of  ambitions,  hostilities  and  intrigues. 
Mutual  charges  of  trimming,  scheming,  deceiving 
and  even  lying  flew  about. 

There  is,  of  course,  no  more  harm  in  a  statesman 
seeking  office  than  in  a  mechanic  seeking  to  become 
a  foreman.  The  cant  of  a  certain  type  of  orator  or 
writer  (generally  "  on  the  make  "  himself,  as  we 
all  are)  on  this  point  is  hardly  less  repugnant  than 
the  effeminacy  of  the  mediaeval  person  who  thinks 
ambition  a  sort  of  sin.  The  mischief  comes  in  when 
the  politician  flatters  himself  that  he  seeks  office, 
or  seeks  to  expel  others  from  office,  for  the  good  of 
the  country.  Your  politician  is,  it  is  true,  always 
convinced  that  his  conduct  of  affairs  will  be  benefi- 
cent, but  his  casuistic  imagination  makes  this  so  im- 
portant that  the  end  begins  to  justify  the  means. 
Hence  the  "  scramble,"  as  Morley  calls  it,  of  1853 
(and  1855).  He  likens  it  to  the  antics  of  carp 


120  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

"  struggling  for  bread  in  the  fish-ponds  of  Fontain- 
bleau."  Disraeli,  excluded  from  the  scramble  by 
his  blunders,  cynically  observed :  "  The  cake  is  too 
small."  Sir  James  Graham  confided  to  his  diary: 
"It  is  melancholy  to  see  how  little  fitness  for  office 
is  regarded  on  all  sides,  and  how  much  the  public 
employments  are  treated  as  booty  to  be  divided 
among  successful  combatants." 

Out  of  the  struggle  emerged  Palmerston :  a 
vigorous,  generous,  cheerful  man,  a  healthy  hater 
of  the  corrupt  European  despots,  a  man  not  in- 
sensitive to  social  maladies  at  home,  but  a  born 
politician.  "  My  lord,"  said  one  to  him,  "  I  shall 
be  pleased  to  support  you  when  you  are  right." 
"  I  don't  want  your  support  when  I  am  right,"  said 
Palmerston,  "  but  when  I  am  wrong,"  The  country 
liked  him;  but  the  country  wanted  more  parlia- 
mentary reform,  and  neither  he  nor  Landsdowne 
wanted  to  see  it,  and  hardly  any  statesman  desired 
it  as  a  matter  of  justice.  The  Crimean  War — with 
the  usual  crop  of  blunders,  born  of  the  seed  of 
political  corruption,  saved  him  from  the  painful 
need  of  reforming  England.  When  it  was  over  he 
recommended  the  incompetent  Duke  of  Cambridge 
as  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  army. 

Peace  came  at  length,  and  then  dissolution;  and 
Bright  urged  the  country  to  turn  down  the  "  set 
of  liars  and  scoundrels  "  who  formed  Her  Majesty's 
Government.  Instead,  the  country  scattered  the 
Manchester  School  and  returned  Palmerston  to 
power.  The  election  was  as  corrupt  as  ever.  A 
recent  writer  tells  from  his  own  recollections  how, 
at  that  time,  the  boatmen  of  Sandwich  would  vote 
for  a  Liberal  for  three  pounds,  but,  being  Liberals, 
would  not  vote  for  a  Tory  for  less  than  five  pounds. 
The  Whigs  contrived  to  get  through  a  very  moderate 
Divorce  measure  (which  still  left  England  behind 
nearly  every  other  civilisation  in  that  matter).  They 


THE    "REFORMED"    PARLIAMENT    121 

were  beaten  in  the  following  year,  and  the  Tories 
had  a  turn.  Their  opponents — the  majority — were 
divided  into  four  bitterly  hostile  parties,  but  the 
quarrels  were  so  largely  personal  that  they  could 
hardly  find  "  planks  "  for  election-platforms. 

The  one  thing  the  country  clearly  did  want  was 
an  extension  of  the  franchise,  and  each  party  now 
saw  that  it  must  give  a  performance  on  that  slack 
wire  if  it  would  attain  power.  Disraeli  unblushingly 
volunteered.  "  If,"  says  the  historian  of  the  time, 
"  we  regard  politics  merely  in  the  light  of  a  game, 
in  which  office  is  the  prize  of  the  most  adroit  or 
lucky  player,  we  cannot  but  bestow  unmixed  praise 
on  this  move  on  the  political  chess-board,  as  being 
the  one  that  was  best  calculated  to  checkmate  the 
opponents  of  the  Government."  The  Bill,  natur- 
ally, embodied  an  astute  attempt  to  enlarge  the 
franchise  yet  strengthen  the  Tories;  and  Palmers- 
tonians,  Russellites,  Cobdenites  and  other  minorities 
united  to  slay  it  and  the  Government.  The  country 
was  dazed  and  weary.  It  wanted  reform,  but  it 
saw  the  matter  "  treated  entirely  as  a  question  be- 
tween the  Ins  and  Outs,"  says  Mr  Herbert  Paul. 
For  a  change  it  returned  a  majority  of  Liberals,  who 
promised  real  reform,  and  they  made  short  work  of 
the  tricks  by  which  Disraeli  tried  to  cling  to  power. 

Palmerston  was  compelled  to  let  Lord  Russell 
introduce  a  reform  Bill.  "  In  1855,"  Gladstone  had 
said  in  the  House,  "  my  noble  friend  escaped  all 
responsibility  for  reform  on  account  of  the  war :  in 
1856  he  escaped  all  responsibility  for  reform  on 
account  of  the  peace :  in  1857  he  escaped  that  in- 
convenient responsibility  by  the  dissolution  of 
Parliament :  in  1858  he  escaped  again  by  the  dis- 
solution of  his  Government."  Gladstone — who  him- 
self showed  not  a  spark  of  concern  for  reform — did 
not  love  Palmerston,  who  detested  all  creeds  and 
Churches.  But  Palmerston  knew  that  he  was  not 


122  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

yet  cornered.  The  majority  of  the  members  wanted 
to  escape  reform  if  they  decently  could.  Russell's 
Bill  was  received  coldly,  debated  languidly,  and 
withdrawn.  "  There  can  be  no  doubt,"  says  Moles- 
worth,  "  that  many  a  member  sent  to  the  House  of 
Commons  because  he  was  believed  to  be  a  strong 
and  honest  reformer  was  secretly  doing  his  utmost 
to  defeat  the  small  modicum  of  reform  which  the 
Government  was  willing  to  concede,  because  they 
knew  that  the  adoption  of  a  Reform  Bill  would  be 
followed  by  a  dissolution."*  Bright  used  stronger 
language  about  this  cynical  violation  of  "  solemn 
pledges."  As  an  historian,  who  is  not  a  Radical, 
says  :  "  Members  who  had  had  to  pay  somewhat 
dearly  for  their  seats  felt  no  desire  to  support  a 
measure  which  might  send  them  back  to  their  con- 
stituencies almost  before  they  had  become  familiar 
with  their  duties."  It  was  the  burning  question  in 
the  country,  yet  on  some  nights  of  the  debate  the 
House  was  counted  out. 

Palmerston  marked  time,  as  far  as  social  legisla- 
tion is  concerned,  for  five  years.  A  reform  Bill  was 
brought  in  almost  annually.  It  was' as  good  a  joke 
as  Women  Suffrage  would  be  to  a  later  generation 
of  politicians,  though  there  was  still  hardly  a  work- 
man in  England  who  had  a  vote.  In  1865  the 
Government  dissolved,  but  Disraeli  and  his  Tories 
were  obviously  just  as  fraudulent  as  the  Liberals, 
and  Palmerston  returned  to  power.  I  will  give  later 
the  authentic  evidence  of  no  less  ecclesiastically- 
minded  a  person  than  Sir  John  (Lord)  Acton  stoop- 
ing to  buy  the  votes  of  shopkeepers  in  this  election, 
in  the  Liberal  interest.  The  country  resounded  with 
the  cry  of  reform  and  wallowed  in  corruption. 

But  Palmerston  died  in  the  same  year,  and  the 
bells  which  tolled  for  him  "  sounded  the  knell  of  the 
ten-pound-householder,  the  real  ruler  of  the  nation." 

*  History  of  England,  iii.,  164«. 


THE    "REFORMED"    PARLIAMENT    123 

Gladstone,  now  Liberal,  led  the  Commons,  and  he 
and  Lord  Russell  decided  that  it  was  their  duty  to 
introduce  a  Bill  at  once.  Their  followers  cursed 
their  conscientiousness,  and  it  had  the  expected 
reward.  Robert  Lowe  and  a  company  of  seceding 
Liberals  attacked  it  fiercely,  and  Disraeli  took  ad- 
vantage of  the  situation. 

The  Tory  ministry  was  formed  in  July  1866,  and 
it  needed  all  the  political  cunning  and  effrontery 
that  Disraeli  could  command.  The  country  was 
aflame  for  reform,  but  Lowe  and  the  Adullamites 
would  regard  it  as  dishonourable  trickery  if  the 
Tories  brought  in  any  Bill  resembling  that  which 
had  occasioned  their  temporary  alliance.  One  of 
the  great  chapters  in  the  history  of  the  political 
game  opened  when  in  February  1867,  Disraeli  pro- 
duced his  proposal.  They  would  proceed,  he  said, 
by  resolution,  not  introduce  a  Bill,  and  the  House 
would,  of  course,  see  that  a  rejection  of  the  resolu- 
tions would  not  involve  the  fall  of  the  Government. 
The  House  laughed  at  the  impudence  of  his  sugges- 
tion, and  he  produced  the  Bill  which  he  had  in 
reserve. 

Nominally,  it  enfranchised  all  ratepayers;  but  a 
series  of  "  fancy  franchises  "  gave  additional  votes 
to  clergymen,  lawyers  and  educated  people  gener- 
ally, so  as  to  reduce  its  democratic  perils.  The 
Liberals  were  baffled  and  annoyed.  Disraeli  had 
stolen  their  electoral  wares.  They  pressed  amend- 
ments, and  Disraeli  gracefully  yielded.  When  the 
amendments  were  Radical,  the  Liberals  themselves 
(fearing  a  dissolution)  would  not  support  them.  Old 
Tories  tearfully  predicted  the  crack  of  doom.  Adul- 
lamites gnashed  their  teeth  at  the  cynical  betrayal. 
Lowe  bitterly  observed  that  "  the  Right  Honourable 
gentlemen  opposite  "  had  "  given  no  indication  of 
the  extreme  facility  of  changing  their  opinions  and 
lending  themselves  to  the  arts  of  treachery."  Dis- 


124  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

raeli  heatedly  advised  the  Right  Honourable  gentle- 
man not  to  be  so  free  with  the  word  "  infamy,"  for 
he  (Lowe)  had  done  the  same  thing  in  1859.  Lord 
Cranbourne  (Salisbury)  said  the  Bill  was  "  a  poli- 
tical betrayal  which  has  no  parallel  hi  our  annals." 
Gladstone  (who  suffered  plural  voting  until  the  day 
of  his  death)  denounced  the  dual  vote  as  "  a  gigantic 
instrument  of  fraud." 

"  When  thieves  fall  out  "—Demos  gets  a  little  of 
his  own.  The  Bill  became  law.  Parliament  was 
again  reformed.  The  measure  stands  in  Conserva- 
tive electioneering  literature  as  one  of  the  glorious 
monuments  of  the  party.  Lord  Derby  merely 
claimed  at  the  time  that  he  had  "  dished  the 
Whigs."  Disraeli  probably  trusted  his  peculiar 
eloquence  to  keep  on  the  straight  path  the  working 
men  he  had  been  forced  to  enfranchise.  After  all, 
he  may  have  reflected,  they  were  less  critical  than 
ten-pound  householders.  "  Few  great  changes," 
says  Mr  Sydney  Low,  "  have  come  about  with  less 
evidence  of  principle  and  conviction  on  the  part  of 
those  mainly  concerned  in  it."  Disraeli,  who  was 
not  haunted  by  such  reflections,  enjoyed  a  delicious 
six  months'  performance  on  the  parliamentary  slack- 
wire.  Lord  Derby  resigned,  or  handed  him  the 
Premiership.  If  the  Liberal  majority  turned  him 
out,  they  would  have  to  appeal  to  the  country  on 
the  old  franchise,  and  therefore  have  to  appeal  again 
as  soon  as  the  new  franchise  was  good.  It  was  the 
game  at  its  most  piquant.  Disraeli  danced  until  the 
autumn.  Then  the  general  election  bade  him  dis- 
appear— ungrateful  country  ! — and  the  great  period 
of  Gladstonian  Liberalism  opened. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

AMERICA  INVENTS  THE  CAUCUS 

AT  this  point  in  our  consideration  of  the  evolution 
of  political  corruption  it  is  necessary  to  pass  from 
the  Old  to  the  New  World.  We  are  going  to  see  a 
new  form,  which  will  provide  a  more  modern  and 
subtle  element  of  demoralisation,  introduced  into 
British  political  life.  Birmingham,  at  this  point, 
begins  to  use  "  the  Caucus";  and,  although  the 
theory  must  not  be  pressed  too  far,  there  is  a  general 
agreement  that  the  idea  of  the  new  "  machine  "  was 
borrowed  from  the  United  States.  It  is,  at  all  events, 
clear  that  the  systematic  organisation  of  political 
life  in  the  United  States,  and  its  usefulness  for  party- 
purposes,  began  to  react  upon  England.  Until  1868 
there  was  little  organisation  in  this  country.  There 
were  recognised  dynasties  of  leaders  of  the  great 
parties,  generally  peers,  and  through  other  peers  and 
landowners  they  secured  that  a  certain  number  of 
constituencies  should  be  either  "  Whig  "  or  "  Tory." 
The  result  was  obtained  by  a  lavish  use  of  money 
and  of  the  dominant  local  influence.  The  new 
party,  Radicalism,  having  little  money  or  influence 
and  large  professions  of  political  virtue,  would  now 
seek  a  counterpoise  in  the  der>^cratic  organisation 
of  votes ;  and  this  would  in  a  few  years  be  perverted 
by  the  oligarchy  and  subdued  by  the  prevailing 
taint. 

During  the  period  immediately  preceding  the 
Revolution  in  the  American  Colony  there  was  a 
division  akin  to  that  of  Whigs  and  Tories  in  England. 

125 


126  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

Some  of  the  colonists  were  for  the  peaceful  induce- 
ment of  England  to  redress  their  grievances  :  some 
were  for  violent  procedure  and  independence.  They, 
in  fact,  called  each  other  Whigs  and  Tories,  and  no 
doubt  the  contrast  of  political  temper  was  of  long 
standing.  Boston,  the  great  centre  of  disaffection, 
was  one  of  the  most  intense  foci  of  political  life, 
and  its  clubs  and  societies  quickly  reflected  the  fire 
of  the  time.  It  is  recorded  by  American  historians 
that  thirty  years  before  the  Revolution  groups  of 
the  more  prominent  citizens  of  Boston  used  to  meet 
at  times  and  "  make  a  Caucus  " ;  that  is  to  say,  to 
settle  between  themselves  the  nominees  for  what- 
ever elective  offices  there  were.  The  absence  of  a 
great  political  centre,  a  native  Parliament,  compelled 
the  ambitious  to  look  the  more  eagerly  to  local 
offices,  and,  as  usual,  a  spirited  few  took  advantage 
of  the  supineness  of  the  majority.  A  secret  con- 
fabulation, over  a  glass  of  spirits  and  a  pipe, 
appointed  the  candidates,  and  the  conspirators  then 
worked  for  their  appointment.  One  such  society 
became  known  as  "  the  Caucus  Club."  The  origin 
of  the  word  is  lost,  and  a  number  of  ingenious 
theories  fill  the  gap  in  our  knowledge ;  but,  although 
it  is  not  the  most  accepted  theory,  one  inclines  to 
the  view  that  it  comes  from  an  Indian  term  for  such 
conversations.  Such  societies,  and  the  "  Sons  of 
Liberty  "  and  "  Daughters  of  Liberty  "  which  arose 
on  every  side,  soon  extinguished  the  last  traces  of 
Tory,  or  pro-English,  feeling,  and  America,  luckily 
for  the  world,  began  its  separate  evolution. 

Some  years  later  the  outbreak  of  the  French 
Revolution,  which  had  been  in  no  small  part  inspired 
by  the  American  Revolution,  led  to  the  creation  of 
a  number  of  "  Democratic  Societies,"  on  which  the 
wealthier  and  the  governing  elements  frowned.  As 
the  French  Republicans  went  from  excess  to  excess, 
and  ended  in  imperialism,  these  societies  fell  into 


AMERICA   INVENTS    THE   CAUCUS     127 

discredit,  but  from  them  is  derived  the  name  of  the 
second  of  the  great  political  parties  of  America,  the 
Democrats. 

It  was,  however,  another  and  more  immediate 
issue  which  rent  the  new  State  into  two  factions, 
In  framing  the  Constitution  statesmen  had  at  once 
encountered  the  very  delicate  problem  of  finding  a 
just  balance  of  power  between  the  central  national 
authority  and  the  constituent  States  of  the  Union. 
Some  such  difficulty  was  encountered  later,  in 
Australia,  and  will  always  be  experienced.  By 
difference  of  temperament  men  divided  into  those 
who  laid  the  greater  stress  on  central  authority  and 
those  who  were  more  jealous  of  liberty.  To  some 
extent  this  was  accentuated  by  a  difference  of  en- 
vironment. The  townsman  favoured  centralisation, 
the  patricians  of  the  agricultural  provinces  preferred 
decentralisation ;  and  the  French  fervour,  which  was 
greatest  in  the  towns,  was  all  on  the  side  of  central 
national  authority.  Men  like  Madison  and  Hamil- 
ton led  a  Federalist  (or  Nationalist  and  Democratic) 
movement  against  the  Anti-Federalist  forces  under 
Jefferson. 

The  Constitution  was  inevitably  a  compromise,  but 
the  struggle  continued  for  a  generation  as  a  conflict 
of  rival  tendencies  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Con- 
stitution. Two  very  sharply  opposed  parties  were 
developed,  and  the  multiplication  of  political  offices, 
in  the  State-legislatures  and  at  Washington,  opened 
out  a  large  field  for  ambition,  intrigue,  and  conflict. 
The  choice  of  Washington  as  first  President  was,  of 
course,  spontaneous  and  national;  and  Adams — in 
spite  of  the  opposition  of  Hamilton — succeeded  him 
without  a  material  use  of  party-machinery.  Both 
these  were  Nationalists  or  Democrats  (a  word  then 
little  used),  and  the  Anti-Federalists  remained  on  the 
opposition  until  they  contrived  to  get  Jefferson 
elected  in  1800.  It  was  now  their  turn  to  reduce 


128  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

the  Democrats  to  powerlessness,  and  by  1820  the 
antagonism  of  the  parties  was  lost,  apparently,  in 
an  "Era  of  Good  Will."  We  shall  see  how  and 
why  it  revived. 

But  what  mainly  concerns  us  is  to  see  how  the 
flavour  of  (supposed)  ancient  Roman  virtue  of  re- 
volutionary days  developed  into  the  extraordinary 
corruption  of  American  politics.  The  "  caucus,"  we 
remember,  was  a  meeting  of  a  small  group  of  force- 
ful citizens  in  some  domestic  or  convivial  environ- 
ment who  agreed  to  promote  the  election  of  certain 
men  (largely  themselves)  to  the  elective  offices.  In 
this  there  is  no  corruption,  unless  we  choose  to  re- 
gard as  such  the  exploiting  for  the  triumph  of  their 
own  ideas  of  the  general  apathy  by  a  spirited  few. 
There  were  now  far  more,  and  more  important, 
offices  to  be  filled,  and  caucusism  had  a  proportion- 
ate development.  One  must  recall  the  conditions 
of  the  time  in  America.  As  late  as  1800  there  were 
only  4,500,000  people  scattered  over  the  existing 
States,  and  in  immense  regions  communication  was 
difficult,  and  an  election  a  vastly  different  matter 
from  what  we  know  it  to-day.  Once  therefore  the 
(presumably)  best  men,  or  politically  best-educated 
men,  of  a  State  were  concentrated  in  the  capital 
of  that  State,  their  recommendation  of  candidates 
would  naturally  have  great  weight.  The  division  of 
parties  increased  the  disposition  of  electors  to  rely 
on  such  recommendations,  as  the  leaders  of  the  party 
were  better  judges  of  what  was  regarded  as  a  vital 
need. 

There  thus  sprang  up  a  party-caucus  of  each  type 
at  every  centre  of  State-legislature,  and  from  it  a 
"  ticket  "  was  issued  recommending  candidates  for 
the  Governorship  or  for  minor  offices.  The  caucus 
soon  extended  its  operation  to  the  nomination  of 
Electors  (the  men  elected  to  elect  the  President). 
The  local  caucus  attended  to  municipal  offices.  The 


AMERICA   INVENTS   THE   CAUCUS     129 

national  caucus  at  Washington,  in  fine,  was  soon 
discovered  to  have,  not  merely  higher  ability  to 
direct,  but  the  advantage  of  a  central  position,  and 
it  began  to  spread  the  net  of  its  influence  over  the 
whole  land. 

Hamilton  and  Madison  may  be  said  to  have 
initiated  the  work  by  their  efforts  to  exclude  Adams 
from  the  Presidency.  There  was  nothing  corrupt  in 
the  measures  they  took,  and  the  motive  was  defen- 
sible; but  such  interference  was  against  the  spirit, 
if  not  the  letter,  of  the  Constitution,  and  it  set  up 
a  precedent.  The  Anti-Federalists,  who  had  ex- 
pressed warm  American  indignation  at  the  conduct 
of  Hamilton,  set  up  a  secret  caucus  of  their  own  at 
the  next  election  and  secured  the  return  of  Jeffer- 
son. In  1804  their  caucus  and  its  operations  were 
quite  open,  and  from  that  date  the  Congressional 
caucus  was  a  recognised  institution.  There  were 
protests  in  the  various  States,  which  could  do  no 
more  than  suggest  names  to  the  central  caucus  at 
Washington,  but  the  Congressmen  held  their  ground 
firmly.  Their  opponents,  the  Democrats,  were  for 
twenty  years  reduced  to  a  negligible  force.  In  the 
country  the  Democrats  were  accused  of  favouring 
the  English  idea  of  a  central  despotism,  and  were 
even  suspected  of  monarchist  plots. 

Another  step  in  the  direction  of  corruption  was 
taken  by  Jefferson  and  his  friends,  though  assuredly 
Jefferson  had  no  idea  of  acting  unworthily. 
Washington  and  Adams  had,  in  assigning  offices, 
looked  only  to  the  fitness  of  applicants.  They 
might  strain  the  qualifications  here  and  there  in 
favour  of  some  meritorious  survivor  of  the  War  of 
Independence,  but  they  did  not  use  their  power  to 
exclude  political  opponents.  Jefferson,  with  the 
familiar  casuistry  of  a  politician,  concluded  that  it 
was  important  to  the  country  that  office-holders 
should  have  "  sound  views."  He  removed  124 


130  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

officials  from  the  administration,  and  took  some  care 
that  Republicans — a  name  which  now  came  into  use 
— filled  the  vacant  places.  No  one  then  foresaw  the 
future  scrambles  for  "  the  spoils  of  office,"  and  all 
the  insufferable  abuses  to  which  this  apparently 
patriotic  principle  would  lead. 

In  the  States  themselves  another  germ  of  corrup- 
tion was  developing.  The  American  Constitution, 
which  one  must  not  call  primitive,  but  which  one 
may  describe  as  the  outcome  of  the  best  wisdom  of 
a  small  population  in  the  eighteenth  century,  laid  it 
down  that  each  State  must  appoint  a  small  number 
of  Electors  who  would  then  choose  the  President  of 
the  Republic.  The  State  was  left  to  settle  its  own 
method  of  nominating  the  Electors,  and  the  political 
eagerness  of  a  few,  which  so  easily  passes  into  cor- 
ruption, found  an  opening  here.  It  was  usual  at 
first  to  divide  a  State  into  districts,  each  of  which 
should  have  one  Elector.  The  practice  soon  set  in 
of  altering  the  districts  so  as  to  include  a  majority 
of  voters  of  a  particular  party,  and  a  new  word  was 
added  to  the  vocabulary  of  political  corruption. 
"  Looks  like  a  salamander,"  said  one  man,  looking 
at  a  '  revised  '  map  of  a  district  issued  by  Governor 
Gerry.  "  You  mean  a  Gerrymander,"  said  another; 
and  "  gerrymandering "  entered  the  dictionary  of 
politicians.  . 

The  normal  method  of  obtaining  the  electors  was 
to  issue  a  list  of  candidates  for  the  whole  State 
and  let  people  vote  on  them.  Here  the  caucus  at  the 
capital  of  the  State  found  an  opportunity,  and  it 
issued  the  "  ticket."  Local  caucuses  were  consulted 
in  drawing  it  up,  but  the  whole  business  was  domi- 
nated by  party-interests  and  personal  greed.  With 
the  "  Revolution  of  1800,"  or  the  triumph  of  the 
Jeffersonians,  the  struggle  became  more  acrimonious, 
and  the  corruption  deepened.  Champions  of  the 
oppressed  minorities  began  in  Congress  to  make 


AMERICA   INVENTS   THE   CAUCUS     131 

eloquent  complaints  about  the  decay  of  the  primitive 
purity  of  American  politics.  The  caucus  was  fiercely 
denounced  as  tyrannical,  and  the  orator,  Randolph, 
admitted  that  the  appointment  of  Electors  had  be- 
come, in  forty  years,  "  a  mockery — a  shadow  of  a 
shade."  The  Senate  passed  a  measure  for  the 
restoration  of  the  district-system,  but  the  House  of 
Representatives  protected  the  caucus  and  its  ticket. 
Differently  from  in  the  Senate,  where  large  and 
small  States  were  equally  represented,  the  more 
populous  States  had  a  majority  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  they  had  an  interest  in  the 
existing  system. 

New  York  was,  meantime,  rising  to  a  position  of 
importance,  and  in  the  third  decade  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  it  contributed  a  fatal  element  to  the 
political  development  of  the  United  States.  So  far 
we  have  seen  manoeuvres  which  only  a  purist  would 
designate  as  corrupt,  and  we  can  well  imagine  the 
politicians  of  America  pouring  virtuous  scorn  on 
that  political  condition  of  monarchist  England  which 
we  have  considered.  They  probably  made  no  allow- 
ance for  the  extreme  difficulty  of  uprooting  abuses 
in  a  country  where  the  traditions  are  centuries  old 
and  the  development  is  continuous.  We  have  now 
to  see  how,  in  spite  of  their  scorn  of  England — a 
disdain  still  instilled  into  the  young  in  American 
schools  by  the  teachers  dwelling  on  the  state  of 
things  we  abolished  in  1832 — in  spite  of  the  political 
virgin  soil  they  had  for  creating  reformed  institu- 
tions, they  engender  a  political  corruption  which  is 
almost  without  parallel  in  the  civilised  world. 
Politics  has  a  peculiar  attraction  for  the  ambitious, 
because  here  the  successful  man  has  an  immeasur- 
ably larger  share  of  public  notice  and  flattery  than 
the  successful  merchant  or  lawyer.  When  large 
material  gain  is  added  to  this  soothing  of  one's 
vanity  the  struggle  for  office  becomes  more  intense 


182  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

and  less  scrupulous,  and  the  character  of  the 
aspirants  sinks  lower  and  lower. 

Amongst  the  patriotic  societies  founded  on  the 
eve  of  the  War  of  Independence  there  had  been 
started  at  New  York  a  "  Society  of  St.  Tammany." 
The  name  is  not  known  in  the  Martyrology  of  the 
Church,  but  true  Americans  must  have  an  American 
patron,  and  a  dead  Indian  chief  was  jovially  decora- 
ted with  the  aureole  of  sanctity.  In  1789  this  society 
was  revived  as  a  democratic  organisation  with  the 
kind  of  Indian  rites  and  ceremonies  which  American 
lodges  still  often  adopt.  Its  aim  was  to  check  the 
wealthy  and  sustain  the  principles  of  the  French 
Revolution.  In  time  it  adopted  the  Jeffersonian 
or  Anti-Federalist  side  in  national  politics,  and 
toward  the  close  of  the  century  it  found  an  able 
organiser  in  Aaron  Burr  and  became  an  effective  and 
unscrupulous  machine  for  controlling  votes.  This 
machine  was  used  on  Jefferson's  behalf  in  the  1800 
election,  and  the  Tammany  men  claimed  that  they 
won  the  Presidentship  for  him.  Jefferson  did  not 
allow  the  claim,  but  he  richly  rewarded  the  New 
Yorkers  with  offices,  and  the  scent  of  Tammany  for 
spoil  grew  keener.  How  it  then  organised  completely 
for  the  control  of  the  city,  how  in  a  few  years  its 
leaders  defrauded  the  city  of  a  quarter  of  a  million 
dollars,  will  be  told  later.  Let  us  first  follow  the 
development  of  national  politics. 

By  the  third  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century 
New  York  and  other  corrupt  cities  were  contributing 
low  and  greedy  types  of  politicians  to  the  central 
body,  and  the  early  tendencies  were  accentuated. 
The  old  division  of  parties  was  hi  decay,  though 
there  was  still  a  general  antagonism  on  such  issues 
as  the  National  Bank  and  other  Federal  proposals, 
and  personal  ambition  was  more  pronounced.  A 
group  of  covetous  men  would  choose  someone  with  a 
plausible  qualification  and  trust  to  enrich  them- 


AMERICA   INVENTS   THE   CAUCUS     133 

selves  by  his  patronage  if  they  made  him  President. 
Senator  Van  Buren,  of  New  York,  the  successor  of 
Aaron  Burr,  adopted  General  Jackson,  a  poor  states- 
man but  very  popular  soldier,  and  the  Tammany 
machine  was  set  to  work  all  over  the  country. 
Adventurers  of  the  lowest  type  were  enlisted  in  the 
campaign,  and  America  generally  had  its  first  great 
lesson  in  corruption.  Jackson  was  elected  (1828),  and 
the  election  was  followed  by  the  first  open  and  sordid 
scramble  for  "  the  spoils  of  office."  Jackson  was 
an  upright  man,  but  he  had  employed  corrupt  men 
and  their  clamours  drowned  his  scruples.  His  pre- 
decessors had  discharged,  collectively,  only  seventy- 
four  public  officials.  Jackson  displaced  two  thou- 
sand in  the  first  year  of  his  Presidentship,  and  let 
his  greedy  followers  into  key-positions  of  the  ad- 
ministrative system.  As  he  was  re-elected  in  1832 
— the  new  men  taking  good  care  of  their  own  re- 
election, for  they  would  certainly  fall  with  their 
President — the  machine  had  eight  years  in  which  to 
fasten  itself  on  the  country. 

America  was  now  definitely  handed  over  to  the 
mercies  of  professional  politicians;  and  English 
politicians,  even  of  that  remote  date,  were  virtuous 
in  comparison.  The  "  caucus  "  had  been  generally 
superseded  by  "  Conventions,"  in  which  delegates 
of  the  voters  met  to  decide  on  the  adoption  of  can- 
didates. The  new  politicians  captured  the  Conven- 
tions by  the  now  general  method  of  direct  or  indirect 
bribery,  and  controlled  the  nominations  from  the 
ward  up  to  the  highest  office.  Where  a  sufficient 
number  of  voters  remained  unattainable  by  corrup- 
tion, violence  was  ruthlessly  organised  and  the 
grossest  fraud  was  used  in  manipulating  the  returns. 
Every  official,  even  police-official,  belonged  to,  or 
was  paid  by  the  party.  Each  of  the  great  parties, 
which  began  about  1835  to  style  themselves  formally 
Republican  and  Democrat,  had  such  an  organisa- 


134  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

tion.  The  weary  and  bewildered  voter  registered 
as  he  was  directed,  or  as  he  had  contracted,  or  else 
remained  aloof  from  the  sordid  traffic  of  political 
life. 

The  economic  crisis  of  1837  and  the  repeated  ex- 
posures of  the  "  graft  "  that  was  now  unblushingly 
levied  more  or  less  awakened  the  country.  America 
was  never  without  statesmen  of  the  nobler  type, 
and  a  high  proportion  of  the  citizens  regarded  with 
shame  the  appalling  lapse  from  the  idealism  of  the 
days  of  Washington  and  Adams.  Unhappily,  many 
of  the  best  citizens  were,  as  in  all  countries,  un- 
willing to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  squalid 
game  of  politics,  even  to  the  extent  of  casting  a 
vote,  and  the  remainder  could  not  put  together  an 
effective  organisation  without  imitating  some  of  the 
irregular  methods  of  their  opponents.  You  need 
some  courage  to  face  the  poll  when  you  know  that 
the  polling-station  will  be  guarded  by  the  "  ward- 
heeler  "  and  his  gang  of  bullies  (with  bribed  police 
looking  on),  that  your  vote  may  have  already  been 
cast  by  someone  who  has  impersonated  you  or 
neutralised  by  two  men  with  no  right  to  vote,  and 
that  the  returns  may  be  falsified  to  any  extent. 
High-minded  leaders  like  Clay  would  not  consent 
to  adopt  any  of  these  methods  after  denouncing 
them  for  years  in  Congress.  General  Harrison,  a 
straight  but  dull-minded  man,  was  chosen  as  candi- 
date by  the  Whigs  (the  reformers),  and,  to  the 
slogan  of  "  Away  with  the  Spoilers,"  they  swept 
him  onward  to  the  supreme  office. 

It  made  little  difference  to  America  except  that 
a  new  and  piquant  feature  was  added  to  political 
life.  Probably  no  spectacle  in  America  is  to-day  so 
bewildering  to  the  Englishman  as  the  carnival  or 
pandemonium  which  accompanies  the  adoption  of  a 
candidate  for  the  Presidentship  at  the  Convention 
of  one  or  other  of  the  great  parties.  Much  allow- 


AMERICA   INVENTS   THE   CAUCUS     135 

ance  must  be  made  for  difference  in  social  traditions. 
I  say  traditions,  not  temperament,  as  the  popular 
sort  of  psychology  in  America  which  diagnoses  the 
differences  between  the  English  and  the  American 
character  is  absurd.  "  The  American  wears  his  heart 
on  his  sleeve,"  I  heard  an  American  orator  say,  to 
resounding  applause,  "  and  the  Englishman  wears 
it — where  God  put  it."  It  is,  of  course,  supposed 
to  be  a  virtue  to  wear  it  on  your  sleeve.  Everyone 
who  knows  America  knows  how  superficial  this  is. 
The  American  social  tradition,  still  saturated  with 
colonial  qualities,  is  more  expansive  and  boisterous 
than  the  English.  On  a  summer's  day,  in  an  outer 
suburb  of  New  York  itself,  you  may  meet  a  com- 
pany of  middle-aged  patresfamilias  dressed  as 
Indians  and  acting  the  part,  following  a  custom  of 
their  "  lodge."  Prick  the  skin  of  one  of  them,  and 
you  may  find  that  he  was  a  sober  Englishman  twenty 
years  earlier.  His  heart  is  still  in  the  same  place; 
but  he  is  in  a  new  social  world. 

At  the  1840  election,  however,  there  was  a  definite 
and  deliberate  beginning  of  the  wilder  features  of  a 
Presidential  campaign.  Harrison  was  a  mediocrity 
who  had  not  even  the  military  ability  which  was 
supposed  to  have  qualified  General  Jackson  for  the 
position  of  supreme  statesman.  He  would  not  fire 
the  imagination  of  the  country;  so  the  party  must 
fire  the  imagination  of  the  country  with  a  poetical 
picture  of  him.  Mammoth-parades,  torch-light  pro- 
cessions, prodigious  banquets,  massive  flag-waving, 
etc.,  were  introduced  in  order  to  simulate  (and  thus 
eventually  create)  the  enthusiasm  which  was  lacking. 
A  London  crowd  will  enthuse  over  anything  if  you 
give  it  the  chance.  An  American  crowd  will  enthuse 
over  nothing,  because  the  enthusiasm  itself  is  worth 
while. 

Harrison  was,  as  I  said,  carried  into  office  to  the 
tune  of  "  Away  with  the  Spoilers."  As  soon  as  he 


136  THE  TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

was  installed  the  lusty  chanters  crowded  round  him, 
clamouring  for  "  the  spoils  of  office,"  and  he  had  to 
yield.  The  spoil  was  now  richer  than  ever.  Rail- 
ways had  begun,  and  securing  a  concession  for  these 
and  other  public  works  meant  enormous  illicit 
wealth.  You  got  a  monopoly  against  a  city  or  a 
State  and  worked  accordingly.  People  slept  in  the 
corridors  of  the  White  House  to  besiege  the  Presi- 
dent in  the  early  morning.  Harrison  succumbed  in 
a  few  weeks,  and  the  Vice-President,  Tyler,  suc- 
ceeded him.  He  was  less  fit  for  the  office  than 
Harrison,  but  the  sacred  Constitution  put  the  coun- 
try in  his  power.  To  secure  his  position  at  the  next 
election  he  discharged  public  officers  (even  Harrison's 
men)  right  and  left,  and  created  a  Tyler-bureaucracy. 
The  administration  became  fearfully  corrupt.  Even 
judges  were  appointed  for  a  few  years,  and  justice 
was  bought  and  sold.  A  period  of  seventy  years' 
immunity  for  certain  types  of  grave  crime  began  in 
many  parts  of  the  United  States.  Corruption  in  the 
State-legislatures  and  the  cities  throve  proportion- 
ately. Politics  became  one  of  the  most  lucrative 
and  least  exacting  professions  in  America. 

The  struggle  over  slavery  and  the  Civil  War  in- 
fused some  sincerity  into  this  shocking  world.  Both 
parties  were  rent  by  the  abolition-question,  and 
Lincoln  was  at  length  elected  on  a  principle.  Even 
at  this  juncture,  however,  the  old  practices  were 
employed.  Without  Lincoln's  knowledge  his  sup- 
porters bargained  with  the  delegates  of  Indiana  and 
Pennsylvania,  promising  that  two  notoriously  un- 
worthy nominees  of  theirs  should  enter  Lincoln's 
cabinet  in  return  for  their  votes.  Lincoln  was  forced 
to  keep  the  compact.  He  (and  most  of  the  leading 
Republicans)  wished  to  purify  the  system,  and  to 
distribute  offices  equally  amongst  the  two  parties. 
But  the  Democrats  generally  sided  with  the  South, 
and  there  was  the  usual  hecatomb  of  partisans  of 


AMERICA   INVENTS   THE   CAUCUS     137 

the  fallen  power.  Over  and  over  again  the  party- 
organisers  compelled  Lincoln  to  make  unworthy 
appointments.  "  Jones  (the  party-boss)  is  Presi- 
dent," said  Lincoln  sadly. 

The  momentary  triumph  of  the  Republicans  led, 
at  the  death  of  Lincoln,  to  the  complete  demoralisa- 
tion of  the  party.  The  Democrats  being  discredited 
for  office,  the  Republicans  invaded  the  conquered 
South,  enfranchised  the  negroes,  and  organised  the 
vote.  Some  of  them,  it  is  true,  were  idealists  of  the 
Abolitionist-school,  but  the  majority  were  "  carpet- 
baggers " — the  name  is  here  added  to  the  American 
political  vocabulary — of  the  familiar  type.  They 
captured  or  sold  the  public  offices,  appointed  their 
own  judges,  levied  commissions  on  contracts,  and 
ruthlessly  plundered  States  and  cities.  Republican 
leaders  directed  the  campaign  from  Washington. 
The  dispossessed  whites  of  the  South  sullenly  re- 
organised as  a  Democratic  party,  and  a  struggle  of 
great  virulence  and  unscrupulousness  ended  in  a 
"  solid  South  "  for  the  Democrats. 

The  party-organisation  of  one  side  or  the  other 
now  completely  overshadowed  the  Executive,  which 
was  rarely  strong.  A  Congressional  Campaign  Com- 
mittee at  Washington  arranged  and  controlled  the 
elections  of  members  of  Congress  throughout  the 
country,  directed  the  President  in  the  exercise  of 
patronage,  and  drew  up  a  regular  tariff  for  aspirants 
to  office.  One  paid  a  specified  sum  to  the  party- 
funds,  and  one  then  proceeded  to  extort  as  much  as 
possible  from  the  position  or  the  contract  which  one 
obtained.  We  shall  see  this  in  more  detail  pre- 
sently, when  we  consider  local  politics.  But  the 
very  centre  of  the  corruption  was  the  capital  of  the 
State  or  of  the  Republic  which  ought  to  have  sternly 
crushed  it.  It  was  a  time  of  great  industrial  expan- 
sion, and  "  boodle  "  and  "  graft  "  attained  the 
monstrous  growth  of  Mesozoic  reptiles.  "  A  net- 


138  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

work  of  rings  surrounds  Congress,"  said  a  writer  in 
the  North  American  Review  as  early  as  1869.  An 
attempt  was  made,  in  the  interest  of  the  people,  to 
check  the  disastrous  grants  of  railway-monopolies, 
but  the  companies  defeated  the  authorities  by  means 
of  their  bribed  representatives  in  Congress  or  in  the 
State-legislature  and  did  what  they  liked  in  the 
country.  Hardly  an  enterprise  could  be  started 
without  the  payment  of  "  boodle  "  (bribes),  and  the 
corrupt  speculators  could  then  rely  on  the  police 
and  the  judiciary  to  overlook  their  exploitation  of 
the  public. 

General  Grant  was  promoted  to  the  White  House, 
and  the  political  world  was,  if  anything,  still  further 
corrupted.  After  the  customary  instalment  of  his 
partisans  in  office  a  system  of  espionage  and  secret 
denunciations  was  evolved,  and  the  terror  was  worse 
than  ever.  The  pretext  was  that  the  South  was  still 
dangerous,  and  it  was  essential  for  the  preservation 
of  the  Republic  to  "  strengthen  the  party."  Every- 
body knew  that  the  real  loyalty  taken  into  considera- 
tion was  the  loyal  payment  of  the  "  voluntary  " 
contributions  to  the  party-funds  which  had  been 
promised  when  office  was  secured,  and  that  hundreds 
of  sordid  adventurers  were  at  hand  seeking  to  dis- 
place the  fortunate  man.  The  idealists  who  had 
entered  the  party  in  the  fight  against  slavery  were 
now  elbowed  out  of  it,  and  the  lower  type  of 
politician,  largely  of  Irish  extraction,  made  of  it  an 
environment  in  which  he  alone  could  prosper. 

Such  was  the  evolution  of  the  political  corruption 
which  grew  up  in  the  virgin  soil  of  the  new  Republic  : 
a  corruption  which  is  even  now  very  far  from 
destroyed  in  America.  President  Hayes  (1876-80) 
tried  to  scotch  it,  but  failed.  Under  Garfield  it  met 
little  check;  and  the  restraint  which  President 
Cleveland  put  on  it  almost  died  away  under  his 
successors,  Harrison  and  M'Kinley.  As  the  South 


AMERICA   INVENTS   THE   CAUCUS     139 

was  plainly  seen  to  be  loyal  after  1870,  there  was  no 
clear  principle  on  which  the  parties  contrasted.  On 
the  tariff  and  currency  questions  each  party  was 
itself  divided.  They  were  bent  only  on  preserving 
the  corrupt  system  and  its  spoils.  In  1883  a  rising 
anger  in  the  country  led  to  the  passing  of  a  measure 
which  opened  public  offices  to  competitive  examina- 
tions and  forbade  "  contributions  "  by  members  of 
legislative-bodies  or  office-holders.  But  within  a 
few  years  the  muddy  stream  had  found  under- 
ground channels.  One  could  still  buy  a  judgeship 
for  $15,000,  or  a  seat  in  Congress  for  $4,000;  and 
the  position  was  worth  far  more  on  account  of  its 
opportunities  for  boodle  and  graft.  Politics  re- 
mained, and  remains,  a  "  game  "  of  a  kind  hardly 
intelligible  to  the  Englishman. 

In  order  to  understand  both  the  value  of  this 
power  for  which  men  struggled  arid  the  reason  why 
the  corruption  flourished  right  into  the  twentieth 
century,  we  must  glance  at  local  politics.  Tammany 
had,  as  we  saw,  inaugurated  the  corruption  at  New 
York,  but  Mr  G.  Myers,  the  impartial  historian  of 
Tammany,  assures  us  that  "  the  Whigs  sought  in 
every  possible  way  to  outdo  Tammany  in  election- 
frauds  .  .  .  and  in  fiscal  frauds  they  left  a  re- 
cord well-nigh  equalling  that  of  Tammany,  The 
Native  Americans  imitated  both  Whigs  and  Tam- 
many men,  and  the  Republicans  have  given  instances 
at  Albany  of  a  wholesale  venality  unapproached  in 
the  history  of  legislative  bodies."*  For  more  than 
a  hundred  years  the  greatest  city  of  the  New  World 
was  exploited  by  rival  broods  of  politicians  to  an 
extent  that  seems  incredible  to  denizens  of  the 
"  effete  and  despotic  "  Old  World.  One  corrupt 
gang,  the  Tweed  gang,  cost  the  city  of  New  York 
at  least  $160,000,000,  on  the  lowest  computation, 
during  a  short  spell  of  power. 

*  The  History  of  Tammany  Hall,  p.  x.  (1901). 


140  THE  TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

Right  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century 
the  Tammany  Society  captured  the  city  of  New 
York,  thinly  veiling  its  operations  with  a  program 
of  charity  and  benevolence.  It  organised  the  votes 
in  every  ward,  and  bribed  or  terrorised  the  voters. 
As  early  as  1806  its  leaders  began  to  be  convicted 
of  fraud,  and  from  that  date  until  1900  there  was 
hardly  one  of  its  prominent  men  who  was  not  in- 
volved in  theft  or  swindling.  In  a  few  years,  in  the 
first  decade  of  the  century,  the  city  showed  a  deficit 
of  quarter  of  a  million  dollars.  In  1811  Tammany 
Hall  was  built  out  of  these  illicit  gains,  and  the 
Tammany  Society  (which  secretly  controls  the  Hall 
and  its  work)  has  found  it  convenient  at  times  to 
insist  on  the  nominal  distinction  of  the  two.  By 
1816  the  Tammany  men  controlled  both  the  city  and 
the  State,  issued  tickets  for  all  offices,  and  regulated 
every  election.  They  were,  in  theory,  still  the 
democratic  representatives  of  the  people  against  the 
Pro-English  plutocrats.  The  people  met  in  their 
wards  to  choose  delegates  for  the  Tammany  Council. 
But  the  leaders,  the  professional  politicians,  were 
rapidly  accumulating  wealth  and  binding  to  them- 
selves, by  golden  chains,  a  sufficient  body  of  ad- 
herents to  ensure  the  realisation  of  their  corrupt 
policy.  They  put  creatures  of  theirs  in  the  police 
and  the  courts,  and  they  allotted  to  each  other,  or 
sold  to  outsiders,  blocks  of  land  which  are  now  in- 
valuable. The  stream  of  gold,  or  silver,  trickled 
down  as  far  as  the  wards,  and  the  entire  system  was 
cemented  by  mutual  interest. 

The  result  became  apparent  in  1826  and  1827, 
when  the  grossest  frauds  were  discovered.  Several 
leaders  were  convicted  of  embezzling  millions  of 
dollars.  They  escaped  punishment,  as  a  rule,  but 
America  was  astounded  at  the  disclosure  of  electoral 
corruption.  Loads  of  men,  generally  vote-less  aliens, 
were  openly  driven  from  poll  to  poll  on  election  days 


AMERICA   INVENTS   THE   CAUCUS     141 

and  permitted  to  vote  at  each.  Voters  of  the 
opposing  side  were  robbed  of  their  votes,  or  the 
votes  were  registered  for  Tammany.  Bribery  was 
common.  The  system  was  used  on  behalf  of  General 
Jackson  at  the  Presidential  campaign,  when  thou- 
sands of  fictitious  votes  were  cast  for  him  in  New 
York.  The  bosses  were  proportionately  rewarded, 
and  the  benefits  percolated  to  the  lower  strata  of 
the  system. 

Robert  Dale  Owen  and  his  "  Working  Men's 
Party  "  boldly  assailed  the  monster  hi  1829.  But 
Tammany  successfully  raised  the  cry  that  the  tenets 
of  the  Owenites,  the  most  idealist  party  of  the  first 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  were  "  subversive  of 
morality,"  and  continued  its  career  of  plunder  and 
violence.  Common  voters  were  paid  five  dollars  a 
vote.  Members  of  the  city  Council  and  the  State- 
legislature  were  bribed  to  grant  franchises  (monopo- 
lies), charters,  etc.,  to  the  men  who  paid  Tammany. 
It  is  estimated  that  the  "  machine  "  was  now  worth 
about  half  a  million  dollars  a  year.  An  Equal 
Rights  Movement  next  (1834-7)  organised  against 
Tammany,  and  helped  the  Whigs  to  power;  but 
between  incompetence  and  corruption — which  was 
tearfully  exposed  by  Tammany  when  it  returned  to 
power — the  Whigs  lost  favour  and  the  old  system 
returned.  The  police  and  judiciary  were  now  com- 
pletely corrupted.  New  York  was  dominated  by  a 
sympathetic  league  of  politicians,  magistrates, 
police,  gamblers,  criminals,  and  prostitutes. 

In  the  forties  violence  was  organised.  Men 
brought  "  gangs  "  to  enforce  their  nomination  at 
the  Council  or  secure  their  election  in  the  wards. 
Nominations  were  put  up  to  the  highest  bidder,  and 
dummy  nominees  were  created  to  raise  the  bids. 
Regiments  of  "  repeaters  "  (men  who  voted  over 
and  over  again,  whether  they  had  a  vote  or  not)  were 
organised  and  conducted  about  under  the  smiling 


142  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

eyes  of  the  Irish  policemen.  "  Ward-heelers " 
(bosses  of  gangs  which  dominated  wards)  were  paid 
to  use  violence,  or  refrain  from  violence,  as  the  case 
might  be.  Whig  wards  sold  their  collective  vote  to 
Tammany,  and  Tammany  wards  sold  their  vote  to 
the  Whigs.  Bloody  fights  kept  away  sober  folk  from 
the  polls.  Their  votes  were  registered  for  Tammany, 
and  thousands  of  voteless  men  were  hired  to  vote. 
In  the  1844  mayoral  election  55,086  votes  were  cast 
in  New  York.  The  total  number  of  legitimate  pos- 
sible voters  was  45,000.  An  English  election  of  the 
same  period  was  a  picture  of  innocence  by  compari- 
son; and  the  corruption  of  the  politicians  them- 
selves was  just  as  far  beyond  that  of  English 
politicians.  A  series  of  disclosures  in  1853  sobered 
America  for  a  time,  in  spite  of  its  excessively  in- 
dulgent disposition.  New  York  was  sodden  with 
corruption,  yet  in  three  years  the  saloons  were  as 
busy  as  ever  organising  sham-voters,  paying  bullies 
to  intimidate  respectable  voters  or  smash  doubtful 
ballot-boxes,  providing  repeaters,  and  handing  out 
twenty-five  dollars  each  to  genuine  voters.  Appar- 
ently, the  disclosures  of  1853  had  whetted  appetites. 
At  the  1856  election  the  chief  of  the  police  had  given 
a  holiday  (to  help  in  his  own  election)  to  nearly  all 
his  men,  and  the  city  is  described  as  resembling  a 
battlefield.  Two  rival  gangs  fought  on  the  streets 
with  guns  and  barricades,  and  ten  were  killed  and 
eighty  wounded.  In  1864  the  Republicans  had  to 
bring  6,000  troops  to  New  York  to  preserve  the  peace 
during  the  election. 

The  service  of  the  city  (which  is,  over  large  areas, 
bad  enough  to-day)  was  intolerable.  All  officers 
were  appointed  for  party-reasons  or  for  money.  A 
sanitary  inspector,  whose  qualifications  were  tested 
by  asking  him  the  meaning  of  "  hygienic,"  thought 
it  meant  "  the  odour  arising  from  stagnant  water." 
He  knew,  at  least,  what  ought  to  be  dealt  with  in 


AMERICA   INVENTS   THE   CAUCUS     143 

New  York.  Candidates  for  the  police  were,  if  they 
could  pay  the  tariff,  tested  by  being  asked  to  read 
the  large-type  title  of  a  newspaper.  State-police 
and  city-police  fought  on  the  streets,  and  had  to  be 
separated  by  soldiers.  The  State-legislature  was, 
in  both  branches,  just  as  bad  as  the  city  Council. 
Democrats  and  Republicans  sold  everything  that  was 
saleable.  Five  bills  in  1860  cost  the  promoters 
quarter  of  a  million  dollars.  One  group  of  thirty 
legislators,  organised  for  hire  or  purchase  under  a 
boss,  were  known  as  "  The  Black  Horse  Cavalry." 

Yet  New  York  had  not  yet  touched  its  lowest 
level.  The  "  boss  system "  replaced  the  clique 
system  in  the  sixties,  and  the  extortion  was  unpara- 
lleled. Boss  Tweed  spent  $100,000  on  the  stables 
attached  to  his  country-house,  and  his  associates 
were  only  a  little  less  rich.  All  the  judges  worked 
with  him,  and  even  murder  was  rarely  punished. 
About  30,000  thieves,  3,000  saloons,  2,000  gambling 
dens,  and  an  incalculable  number  of  prostitutes  paid 
weekly  tribute.  The  newspapers  were  nearly  all 
subsidised — the  Sun  proposed  the  erection  of  a 
statue  to  Tweed — but  in  1871  the  Times  began  to 
expose  the  gang,  and,  after  a  long  and  thrilling  fight, 
Tammany  was  defeated  at  the  election.  Tweed  went 
to  jail,  and  his  gang  was  dispersed.  In  three  years 
it  had  corruptly  accumulated  at  least  a  hundred  and 
sixty  million  dollars.  Yet  Tammany  was  in  power 
again  in  1874,  and  Boss  Kelly  (1874-84)  emulated  the 
career  of  Tweed,  and  Boss  Croker  (1886-97)  followed 
and  discreetly  emulated  Kelly. 

It  is  needless  to  tell  the  more  recent  record  of  New 
York.  There  was  a  "  reform  "  in  1890,  and  Tam- 
many was  back  in  1892.  There  was  another  reform 
later,  and  Tammany  was  back  in  1904.  There  has 
been  a  prolonged  and  most  devoted  struggle  for 
reform  in  the  last  twenty  years,  but  the  whole  world 
knows  how  deep  the  corruption  was  until  at  least  a 


144  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

few  years  ago.  In  1910  a  high-minded  merchant, 
fighting  the  Poultry  Trust,  was  shot  dead  in  broad 
daylight  on  the  open  market,  before  the  eyes  of 
scores  of  men,  and  no  prosecution  followed,  for  no 
witness  dare  speak.  In  1912  a  gambler,  Rosenthal, 
"  squeaked "  about  police-extortion,  and  Police- 
Lieutenant  Becker,  who  had  been  his  partner,  hired 
four  men  to  murder  him  on  Broadway.  The  world 
gasped  when  it  read  the  records  of  the  trial.  East- 
side  bankers  told  me  that  the  "  gunmen "  were 
clients  of  theirs — "quite  a  nice,  smart  young  fellow," 
a  banker  described  one  of  these  professional  mur- 
derers to  me — and  their  profession  was  well  known. 
New  York  lawyers  blandly  explained  to  me  the  cor- 
ruption in  regard  to  prostitutes  which  still  prevailed 
in  1913.  Since  then  Tammany  has  returned  to 
power,  and  perhaps  the  reform  of  New  York's 
politics  is  completed. 

When  one  turns  to  Lincoln  Steftens's  Shame  of  the 
Cities  one  is  at  first  amazed  to  find  him  describing 
New  York,  in  1904,  as  "  the  best  example  of  good 
government  that  I  had  seen!"  Chicago,  which  has 
to-day  more  murders  to  its  account  in  a  year  than 
Great  Britain  has,  and  of  which  its  own  highest 
authority  has  recently  said  that,  owing  to  police- 
corruption,  "  the  crime  conditions  are  appalling,"  is 
described  by  Steffens  as  "  a  triumph  of  reform!" 
And  these  things  are  said  in  a  work  which  raised  a 
howl  of  indignation  in  America  at  the  author's  in- 
justice to  local  politicians !  But  Mr  Steffens  is  a 
conscientious  journalist,  and  the  state  of  things  he 
describes  in  the  cities  of  Philadelphia,  St.  Louis, 
Minneapolis,  and  Pittsburg  goes  far  to  explain  his 
words.  I  cannot  even  summarise  his  indictment 
here.  "  You  can't  put  all  the  known  incidents  of 
the  corruption  of  an  American  city  into  a  book,"  he 
says.  A  friend  of  his  is  writing  a  record  of  the 
corruption  employed  in  one  specific  undertaking — 


AMERICA   INVENTS   THE   CAUCUS     145 

the  building  of  the  Philadelphia  City  Hall — and  he 
doubts  if  three  volumes  will  suffice.  Here  a  few 
words  must  suffice  to  send  to  the  American  work, 
and  to  Mr  Myers's  History  of  Tammany  Hall,  the 
reader  who  has  so  far  failed  to  appreciate  the  taint 
of  the  political  atmosphere. 

St.  Louis  is,   or  was  until  recently,  the  special 
shrine  of  "  boodle,"  or  the  making  of  money  by  the 
corrupt  grant  or  securing  of  "  franchises  "  (conces- 
sions or  monopolies)  and  contracts.     It  is  a  recent 
development,     dating    mainly    from     about     1890. 
Decent  men  were  driven  out  of  local  politics,  and 
other  men  organised  with  all  the  brutality  of  the 
game.      A  regular  tariff — so  much  for  a  wharf,  a 
siding,  a  street-improvement,  even  for  an  awning  or 
a  pedlar's  license — was  drawn  up.     Public  property 
was  plundered,  and  the  pay-rolls  were  loaded  with 
false  names.       Foreign  corporations  flocked  to  the 
golden  meadows,  and  outbid  the  St.  Louis  men  for 
trading  concessions.     Then  the  St.  Louis  men  rose 
in  wrath  and  had  a  "  reform  "  :    that  is  to  say,  one 
brave    and    honest    Attorney    General,    Folk,    now 
found  people  enough  to  support  him,  and  he  made  a 
magnificent    fight.       One    railway    had    deposited 
$144,000  in  bribes  for  municipal  councillors  to  pass 
a  certain  Bill.     These  councillors  had  tried  to  sell  the 
waterworks,     which    was    worth     $40,000,000,     for 
$15,000,000,  and  a  million  for  themselves.     It  was 
so  flagrant  that  millionaires  and  politicians  had  to 
be  sentenced  to  several  years  of  prison;    but  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Missouri  obligingly  quashed  the 
sentences.     In  the  middle  of  the  fight  there  was  an 
election,  and  the  people  took  so  little  interest  that 
the  boodlers  secured  power  again.     St.  Louis  is  said 
to  have  improved  in  recent  years. 

Minneapolis  began  the  game,  on  a  large  scale,  as 
late  as  1901.    Mayor  Ames — all  names  and  details 
are  given  in  this  terrible  book — appointed  gamblers 
K 


146  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

and  criminals  as  his  chief  police-officers,  dismissed 
107  honest  policemen  out  of  a  total  force  of  225, 
and  proceeded  to  make  merry.  Here  the  specialty 
was  "  graft,"  or  commissions  on  crime  and  vice. 
Prostitutes  paid  a  hundred  dollars  a  month,  and 
occasional  presents.  Mayor  Ames  benevolently  re- 
duced their  debt  to  the  city  to  $100  in  two  months ; 
and  he  collected  the  intervening  month  for  himself. 
"  Blind  pigs,"  opium  joints,  gambling  dens,  and 
thieves  had  a  proportionate  tariff.  Thieves  and 
gamblers  were  invited  to  come  from  other  cities  and 
work  under  the  protection  of  their  old  associates. 
They  paid  $500  or  $1,000  down,  and  $200  a  week. 
The  police  dipped  into  the  profession  on  their  own 
account  at  times.  But  Minneapolis  found  the  stench 
of  this  corruption  too  pronounced,  and  the  whole 
system  was  expounded  in  court  in  1902  and 
abolished. 

Pittsburg  cultivated  boodle  and  graft  impartially. 
It  is  the  city  which  someone  described  as  "  Hell  with 
the  lid  off."  "Politically,"  says  Steffens,  "it  is 
hell  with  the  lid  on."  In  the  eighties  it  had  a 
"  boss,"  one  Chris  Magee,  who  went  to  New  York 
and  Philadelphia  to  study  the  trade.  He  organised 
the  wards  and  controlled  the  Council.  Vice  and 
drink  paid  graft.  Monopolies  and  contracts  oozed 
boodle.  But  Chris  was  not  as  gross  as  a  New  York 
boss,  and  he  gave  a  good  deal  of  value  to  the  city. 
The  system  was  exposed  and  broken,  but  the 
memory  of  the  genial  Chris  is  cherished  in  Pitts- 
burg,  as  you  will  find  if  you  revile  it  there. 

Philadelphia  is  an  easy  first,  if  you  credit  Mr 
Steffens;  though  I  doubt  if  he  knows  Tammany  as 
well  as  that  city.  It  was  already  "  corrupt  and  con- 
tented "  in  the  sixties.  In  the  seventies  its  famous 
Gas  Ring  certainly  ran  Tammany  close.  They 
turned  all  their  employees  into  ward-politicians, 
silenced  money-making  citizens  by  maintaining  pro- 


AMERICA   INVENTS   THE   CAUCUS     147 

tection,  put  respectable  figure-heads  into  office,  and 
took  a  prodigious  toll  of  the  coffers  of  the  city. 
They  were  defeated  in  1883,  but  the  corruption  con- 
tinued, and  two  "  bosses,"  Martin  and  Porter,  cap- 
tured the  "  machine."  Repeaters  (illegal  plural 
voters)  were  so  numerous  that  a  ballot-box  in  a 
district  of  one  hundred  voters  would  contain  200 
votes.  The  judges  (part  of  the  system)  declared 
that  the  ballot-box  was  sacred  and  there  could  be  no 
scrutiny.  Some  of  the  names  attached  to  voting 
papers  were  the  names  of  children :  others  of  dead 
dogs.  The  police  helped  the  party  to  find  "  re- 
peaters," and  genially  protected  the  elections. 
Elections  were  held  in  a  disorderly  house  belonging 
to  a  district-assessor.  Teachers,  reformers,  churches, 
and  charitable  institutions  were  bought  up  by 
grants.  There  were  several  exposures,  but  no  pro- 
secutions, and  the  graft  and  boodle  grew  steadily 
worse.  In  1901  the  city  lost  $2,500,000  on  one 
contract.  We  are  not  told  how  far  Philadelphia  has 
reformed;  but  I  may  add  that  during  the  last  ten 
years  there  has  been  a  strenuous  campaign  for  re- 
form in  America. 

Chicago  is  described  as  "  reformed  in  spots." 
Boodle  was  abolished  after  a  thriving  career  in  the 
nineties.  In  1902  a  New  York  firm  offered  a  bribe 
of  a  million  dollars  for  a  certain  concession,  and  it 
was  refused.  Hence  Chicago's  reputation  for  virtue ; 
though  one  ought  to  add  that  the  bankers  of  Chicago 
were  infuriated  at  this  "  refusal  of  business.."  I 
ought  to  add  also  that  when  I  was  there  in  1913 
there  was  a  hold-up,  with  revolvers,  on  the  crowded 
main  street  (corresponding  to  Oxford  Street)  in  the 
middle  of  the  afternoon;  and  the  papers  described 
it  as  the  eightieth  hold-up  on  the  streets  of  Chicago 
in  a  few  months,  and  ascribed  it  to  police-corruption. 
I  have  already  quoted  the  President  of  the  Chicago 
Crime  Commission  saying,  in  November,  1919,  that 


148  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

"  the  crime  conditions  are  appalling,"  and  that  the 
police  and  courts  could  reduce  the  crime  by  50  per 
cent,  in  thirty  days  if  they  would! 

San  Francisco,  Washington,  Cincinatti,  New 
Orleans — in  a  word,  nearly  all  the  large  towns  of  the 
United  States,  have  much  the  same  record.  These 
are  the  centres  in  which  elections  occur,  the 
nurseries  of  the  higher  politicians;  and  no  one  who 
is  familiar  with  them  will  question  that,  while  the 
grosser  features  have  gone,  the  taint  of  the  political 
atmosphere  remains.  I  was  in  America  only  a  few 
years  ago  when  Congress  was  bringing  its  session  to 
a  close.  It  was  bewildering  to  see  the  geniality  with 
which  nearly  every  American  journal  bantered 
Congressmen  on  the  crowd  of  "  pork  "  Bills  with 
which  they,  as  usual,  concluded  the  session.  They 
were  about  to  face  their  constituents,  and  the 
"  pork  "  Bill  which  each  produces  on  such  occasions 
is  the  grant  of  a  road,  a  bridge,  a  railway,  or  some 
other  fat  morsel,  at  public  expense,  for  those  whose 
votes  he  is  about  to  solicit.  There  is  only  one 
thing  more  repugnant — the  unctuous  and  patriotic 
language  in  which  the  votes  are  solicited. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   ORGANISATION   OF   CORRUPTION 

WE  return  to  England,  and  must  now  see  how  far 
the  American  system  was  introduced  and  what  were 
the  consequences.  The  general  election  of  1868  had, 
we  saw,  thrown  out  Disraeli,  the  emancipator  of  the 
working  class,  and  given  Gladstone  a  majority  of 
120.  Disraeli  had  been  right  in  one  respect.  The 
enfranchised  workers  showed  not  the  least  disposi- 
tion to  anarchy  or  revolution.  Every  working-man 
candidate  was  rejected,  and  it  is  estimated  that  the 
new  House  of  Commons  was  "  the  wealthiest  that 
had  ever  assembled."  Even  Radicals  like  Roe- 
buck, and  eminent  friends  of  the  people  like  John 
Stuart  Mill,  lost  their  seats.  But  the  country  had 
not  been  deceived  by  the  Electoral  Reform  Act. 
Either  party  would  have  been  forced  to  pass  it,  and 
neither  party  really  liked  it.  The  issue  of  the  elec- 
tion was  Gladstone  or  Disraeli,  pacification  or  coer- 
cion in  Ireland.  Few  trusted  the  glittering  verbiage 
of  Disraeli,  and  Gladstone  hastened  grimly  to  West- 
minster to  open  the  Liberal  millenium. 

It  was  in  this  election  of  the  year  1868  that  the 
caucus  made  its  first  humble  and  innocent  appear- 
ance in  England.  There  had  hitherto,  we  saw,  been 
comparatively  little  organisation  of  political  life. 
Since  the  eighteenth  century  the  leaders  of  the  great 
parties  had  had  "  whippers-in  "  (whips)  to  secure 
the  attendance  of  the  supporters  whom  they  had 
corruptly  placed  in  Parliament,  and  in  the  towns, 
to  some  extent  even  in  the  counties,  there  had  been 

149 


150  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

political  societies,  independent  of  Westminster,  for 
propaganda  purposes.  In  1831  the  Tories  had 
created  a  political  centre  in  the  Carlton  Club.  Five 
years  later  the  Whigs  had  established  the  Reform 
Club.  Since  1832,  moreover,  there  had  been  a 
growth  in  the  country  of  "  Registration  Societies." 
The  Reform  Bill  had  left  the  register  of  electors 
almost  as  open  to  dispute  as  ever,  and  agents  of 
the  candidates,  aided  by  specialist  lawyers,  had  con- 
tinual and  expensive  conflicts  over  the  rights  of  the 
long-suffering  voters.  Registration  Societies,  Whig 
and  Tory,  joined  the  fray.  In  1861  central  Regis- 
tration Societies  had  been  established  at  London. 

We  must  not  exaggerate  our  indebtedness  to  the 
United  States,  yet  there  was  in  1868  a  new  develop- 
ment which  is  generally  described  as  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  American  caucus.  On  December  21st, 
1867,  the  secretary  of  the  Birmingham  Liberal 
Association,  one  of  the  most  spirited  provincial 
centres  of  the  time,  put  forward  a  plan  for  the 
close  local  organisation  of  political  life.  The  con- 
stituency was  to  be  mapped  and  groups  of  burgesses 
were  in  each  district  (corresponding  to  the  Ameri- 
can ward)  to  elect  representatives  who  would  meet 
in  council  and  choose  candidates.  The  procedure 
was  strictly  democratic,  and  it  expressly  excluded 
dictation  from  Westminster.  The  idea  was  taken 
up.  The  Ward  Committees  appointed  a  Central 
Committee,  which  nominated  three  Liberal  candi- 
dates for  the  coming  election.  Birmingham  was 
systematically  canvassed.  The  new  voters  were  in- 
structed, and  the  waste  of  votes  by  overlapping 
was  ingeniously  prevented.  One  elector  was  to  vote 
for  A  and  B,  a  second  for  B  and  C,  and  a  third 
for  A  and  C.  The  Radical  Central  Committee  would 
have  been  horrified  to  hear  itself  described  as  a 
caucus.  Had  not  the  voters  elected  them?  But 
the  gist  of  the  matter  was  :  "  Vote  as  you  are  direc- 


THE  ORGANISATION  OF  CORRUPTION    151 

ted  " — if  you  want  the  party  and  its  magnificent 
ideals  to  prevail. 

As  the  three  candidates  were  returned,  the  enter- 
prise obtained  the  seal  of  success.  It  was  applied, 
with  the  same  issue,  to  municipal  politics.  It  under- 
took propaganda,  and  the  plan  was  adopted  by 
Liberals  in  other  towns.  It  developed  aspirations, 
and  in  a  few  years  Birmingham  became  the  centre 
of  a  National  Liberal  Federation,  chastely  isolated 
from  the  taint  of  Westminster.  There  were  now 
two  men  of  great  and  varied  ability  behind  the 
machine :  Joseph  Chamberlain  and  that  astutest  of 
workers  in  obscurity,  Schnadhorst.  The  caucus  was 
an  accomplished  fact.  The  Conservatives  heavily 
reviled  its  despotism  and  corruption,  then  copied  it. 
It  was  Disraeli  who  stripped  it  of  its  air  of  Bir- 
mingham originality  and  called  it  the  "  caucus." 
He  adopted  it  soon  afterwards. 

Years  would  elapse  before  the  new  machine  fell 
under  the  power  of  the  Parliamentary  leaders,  and 
we  may  meantime  glance  once  more  at  Westminster, 
where  Gladstone  led  his  legion  to  the  great  Liberal 
campaign  against  injustice.  His  majority  was  not 
quite  a  pure  expression  of  the  determination  of  the 
British  public.  "  At  the  general  election  of  1868," 
says  Ostrogorski,  "  corrupt  practices  prevailed  to 
a  greater  extent  than  at  all  the  elections  of  the 
preceding  half-century."  There  it  was,  however, 
and  the  country  expected  it  to  repeat  the  Whig 
record  of  the  Reformed  Parliament  of  1832. 

Gladstone  had  appealed  for  a  mandate  to  pacify 
Ireland  by  disestablishing  the  Church  and  passing 
a  Land  Bill,  and,  as  is  known,  he  drove  both 
measures  through  the  House  before  the  end  of  1870. 
The  first  measure  affords  a  good  illustration  of 
parliamentary  methods.  Though  "  both  sides  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  having  threshed  out  the  subject 
on  the  hustings,  were  beyond  the  reach  of  logic," 


152  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

as  Mr  Herbert  Paul  says;  the  debates  raged  and 
blazed  for  three  solid  months.  Then  the  pious 
Lords  sprang  to  the  breach.  The  Queen,  hostile  to 
the  Bill  but  assured  that  it  was  inevitable,  con- 
veyed a  hint  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  let 
it  pass  (after  exacting  as  much  money  for  the  Church 
as  possible),  but  the  Lords  sustained  the  struggle 
until  October.  Some  were  in  tears.  Some  declared 
themselves  ready  to  kneel  at  the  block  rather  than 
see  this  anomaly  removed  from  Ireland  The  Land 
Bill  occupied  the  following  year,  and  the  Liberals 
then  turned  to  consider  if  anything  could  be  done 
for  England. 

It  had  been  obvious  for  seventy  years  to  the 
meanest  social  student  that,  whatever  the  American 
slaves  or  the  oppressed  Greeks  or  the  Irish  peasants 
needed,  the  mass  of  the  people  of  Great  Britain 
urgently  needed  education.  Until  1868  extensions  of 
the  franchise  had  been  devoid  of  the  least  risk.  They 
had  substituted  alert  members  of  the  middle  class 
for  the  drunken  and  corrupt  voters  of  the  earlier 
period.  Now  that  political  power  found  a  still 
broader  base,  and  the  demand  for  manhood  suff- 
rage became  louder,  the  appallingly  backward  state 
of  the  people  was  a  clear  menace  No  less  than  two 
million  children  were  still  without  any  sort  of  edu- 
cation, and  a  further  million  attended  schools  of  the 
poorest  character,  which  were  never  inspected. 
Nearly  three-fourths  of  even  the  new  generation 
were  growing  up  to  civic  life  in  total  ignorance,  or 
a  literacy  which  was  not  far  removed  from  it.  We 
pay  dearly  to-day  for  the  interested  refusal  of  poli- 
ticians during  half  a  century  to  educate  England, 
and  the  jealousy  of  Church  and  Chapel  which 
furnished  them  with  a  pretext. 

It  is  characteristic  of  Mr  Gladstone's  Whig  type 
of  mind  that  he  took  far  less  interest  in  such 
subjects  than  in  the  grievances  of  Greeks,  Italians 


THE  ORGANISATION  OF  CORRUPTION    153 

or  Irish.  "  In  the  new  scheme  of  national  educa- 
tion established  in  1870,"  says  Lord  Morley, 
"  the  head  of  the  Government  rather  acquiesced 
than  led  .  .  .  his  private  interest  in  public  education 
did  not  amount  to  zeal,  and  it  was  at  bottom  the 
interest  of  a  churchman.  .  .  .  What  Mi  Gladstone 
cared  for  was  the  integrity  of  religious  instruction."* 
Of  the  Whig  peers  with  whom  he  liked  to  fill  his 
cabinet  not  one  cared  sincerely  for  the  education 
of  the  people.  But  the  country  and  its  Radical 
representatives  forced  the  subject,  and  Forster 
introduced  a  measure. 

The  struggle  over  education  began  the  disruption 
of  the  Liberal  party  and  prepared  the  way  for  later 
developments.  The  Radicals  were  for  free,  com- 
pulsory and  secular  education :  for  a  unified  school- 
system  which  should  end  the  long  scandal  of  clerical 
obstruction  and  leave  religious  education  to  reli- 
gious institutions.  Here  Gladstone,  as  Whig  and 
Churchman,  opposed  the  popular  demand,  and 
availed  himself  of  every  pretext  for  compromise. 
He  would  have  education  neither  free,  nor  com- 
pulsory (universal),  nor  liberated  from  religious 
complications;  and  he  was  stoutly  supported  by 
his  colleagues.  They  proposed  to  leave  the  religious 
question  to  local  authorities.  Mr  Vernon  Harcourt 
pleasantly  described  the  consequences.  "  Close 
upon  four  o'clock  on  the  polling  day,"  he  said, 
"  men  will  accept  as  many  articles  of  faith  as  you 
may  supply  them  with  pints  of  beer,  and  the  least 
sober  will  be  the  most  orthodox."  The  struggle 
ended  in  Cowper-Templeism,  and  Radicals  and  Non- 
conformists began  to  doubt  the  democracy,  and 
deplore  the  prejudices,  of  the  Liberal  leader. 

So  far  England  owed  little  to  the  groups  of 
statesmen,  mostly  hereditary  legislators,  who  con- 
trolled the  House  of  Commons  and  administered  a 

*  Life  of  Gladstone,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  298  and  299. 


154  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

country  whose  material  prosperity  was  out  of  all 
proportion  to  its  social  condition.  Some  good 
measures — abolishing  University  Tests  and  the  pur- 
chase of  army-commissions,  legalising  Trade  Unions, 
reorganising  the  army,  and  introducing  the  ballot — 
were  passed  in  1871  and  1872.  But  compromise 
lingered  in  the  cabinet,  and  the  country  began  to 
grow  weary.  Ireland,  instead  of  being  pacified,  was 
more  unruly  than  ever.  Appointments  of  a  party 
character  were  made.  Licensing  Bills  shrank  before 
the  bluster  of  "  the  Trade."  It  was  at  the  end  of 
1872  that  Disraeli  made  the  famous  speech  in  which 
he  likened  the  occupants  of  the  Front  Bench  on  the 
Government  side  to  "  a  range  of  exhausted  vol- 
canoes." "  Not  a  flame  flickers  upon  a  single 
pallid  crest,"  he  said,  in  a  masterly  example  of  the 
sparkling  rhetoric  with  which  he  concealed  the  Tory 
lack  of  constructive  proposals.  The  year  1873  was 
spent,  wearily,  once  more  upon  Ireland,  and  Glad- 
stone was  defeated.  Disraeli  played  the  game.  He 
insisted  that  Gladstone  should  have  a  few  more 
months  to  complete  the  demoralisation  of  his  party, 
and  then,  in  1874,  he  summoned  the  Trade  and  the 
Church  and  the  country  to  put  an  end  to  this 
"  career  of  plundering  and  blundering." 

The  Conservatives  returned  to  power  with  a 
majority  of  eighty-three.  Gladstone  complained 
that  he  was  swept  away  in  "  a  torrent  of  gin  and 
beer."  His  less  pious  Radical  followers  called  it 
an  alliance  of  Beer  and  Bible;  and  Conservative 
writers  admit  that  they  assiduously  cultivated  the 
penetrating  influence  of  both  publican  and  parson. 
They  do  not  admit,  though  it  is  past  dispute,  that 
bribery  was  as  rife  as  ever.  The  elector,  long 
educated  in  corruption,  had  now  the  added  advan- 
tage of  the  ballot,  and  might  take  money  or  liquor 
from  either  side  without  prejudice  to  the  sanctity 
of  his  vote.  Still,  neither  political  party  had  any 


THE  ORGANISATION  OF  CORRUPTION    155 

intention  of  striking  at  these  corrupt  practices.  The 
Parliamentary  game  controlled  the  entire  procedure. 
Disraeli  had  posed  as  champion  of  Church  and 
Trade — the  two  chief  nerves  of  the  electorate — and 
had  thrown  out  vague  promises  with  liberal  hand 
to  all  parties.  When  their  representatives  promptly 
appeared  at  Westminster  to  claim  the  fulfilment  of 
the  promises,  he  explained  that  his  Government  was 
not  bound  to  honour  every  unofficial  promise  that 
had  been  made  at  the  hustings  by  Tory  candidates. 
Gladstone  had  tried  to  outbid  him  by  a  vague 
promise  to  abolish  the  income-tax  :  which  Chamber- 
lain, somewhat  too  strongly,  described  as  "  the 
meanest  public  document  which  has  ever,  in  like 
circumstances,  proceeded  from  a  statesman  of  the 
first  rank."  The  bait  was  disregarded,  and  Achilles 
sulked  in  his  tent  for  some  time,  leaving  the  lead 
of  his  diminished  forces  to  Hartington. 

We  will  not  linger  over  the  inglorious  record  of 
the  next  few  years.  Parliamentary  time  must  be 
occupied,  and  a  number  of  unexciting  measures,  of 
secondary  importance,  passed  into  law.  One  of  the 
most  important  was  the  Merchant  Shipping  Bill. 
Appalling  facts  were  laid  before  the  House  by 
Plimsoll,  yet  Disraeli,  with  the  connivance  of  the 
Whigs,  attempted  to  prevent  it  from  becoming  law, 
until  Plimsoll,  losing  his  self-control,  poured  scald- 
ing invectives  on  this  proposal  of  political  jobbery. 
The  Russo-Turkish  War  broke  out,  and  the  usual 
advantage  was  taken  of  that  blessed  pretext  for 
doing  nothing. 

It  is  remembered  by  most  people  to-day  only 
that  we  "  put  our  money  on  the  wrong  horse,"  but 
a  close  examination  of  the  period  will  reveal  more 
than  a  diplomatic  miscalculation.  Sir  Stafford 
Northcote,  on  behalf  of  the  Government,  made  an 
entirely  false  statement  to  the  House.  Nothing  had 
occurred,  he  said,  as  the  House  was  adjourning,  to 


156  THE  TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

mar  the  good  prospect  of  peace  in  Europe.  It  was 
reported  by  the  London  papers  the  next  day  that 
the  Government  had,  while  it  made  this  announce- 
ment, ordered  7000  Indian  troops  to  Malta.  They 
had,  Northcote  flippantly  said,  on  being  challenged, 
"  merely  moved  troops  from  one  part  of  the  Queen's 
dominions  to  another."  The  weakness  of  the 
Liberals  hi  face  of  this  misconduct  was  such  that 
Disraeli  taunted  them  with  their  inability  to  move 
a  vote  of  censure.  He  was  at  the  height  of  his 
popularity,  the  summit  of  the  Queen's  favour.  It 
was  then  that  he  described  his  great  Liberal 
opponent  as  "  intoxicated  with  the  exuberance  of 
his  own  verbosity." 

Gladstone  waited  with  the  patience  of  a  political 
spider.  The  Russian  imbroglio  was  followed  by  the 
Afghan  War :  the  Afghan  War  by  the  Zulu  War. 
The  time  had  come.  The  first  Midlothian  campaign 
echoed  in  the  wilds  of  Scotland  and  brought  comfort 
to  the  drooping  hearts  of  Liberals.  A  shining  moral 
idealism  was  opposed  to  the  tinselled  profligacy  of 
the  Conservative  administration.  The  country 
stirred,  and  Disraeli  hastily  dissolved;  and  with 
a  loud  cry  of  the  triumph  of  principle  over  "  gin 
and  beer  "  the  Liberals  returned  to  the  House  with 
a  majority  of  one  hundred  and  six  over  then- 
opponents. 

In  point  of  sober  historic  fact,  the  election  of  1880 
was  one  of  the  most  corrupt  since  1832.  "  By  this 
token  know  ye  the  power  of  the  Caucus,"  Mr  Cham- 
berlain cried  to  the  Conservatives;  and  it  was  the 
first  election  in  which  the  Birmingham  system  was 
generally  applied.  But  the  caucus  had  blended 
easily  with,  not  only  the  Midlothian  idealism,  but 
the  oldest  traditions  of  persuading  voters.  A  shower 
of  petitions  followed  the  election,  and  the  inquiries 
revealed  a  disgusting  amount  of  corruption.  The 
official  returns  put  the  cost  of  the  election  at 


THE  ORGANISATION  OF  CORRUPTION    157 

£1,737,000;  though  it  was  believed  to  be  nearer 
£3,000,000.  Liberal  candidates  had  spent,  on  the 
average,  £1604  each  in  persuading  the  voters  of  the 
wickedness  of  their  Tory  rivals.  Conservative  can- 
didates had  spent  £1974  each  in  proving  that  they 
were  the  genuine  guardians  of  probity  and  property. 
There  were  fiery  mutual  charges  of  open  or  masked 
corruption  all  over  England,  and  any  person  who 
cares  to  run  over  the  Blue  Books  of  1881  (vols. 
xxvi,  xxvii.,  xxix.  and  xxxi.)  will  exonerate  the 
honourable  members  from  malice  in  making  the 
charges.  Direct  bribes  were  still  given,  but  the 
new  system  had  generally  camouflaged  its  opera- 
tions by  the  creation  of  regiments  of  canvassers, 
messengers,  printers,  entertainers,  etc. 

Gladstone  was  triumphant,  but  his  air  of  triumph 
faded  somewhat  when  he  surveyed  his  new  world. 
The  echoes  of  the  Midlothian  campaign  rolled  omin- 
ously over  the  world.  "  The  Irish  Brass  Band  " 
was  just  begining  its  irrepressible  music  under 
Parnell;  and  Gladstone  had  thought  much  more 
about  Bulgarians  than  the  Irish.  The  Boers  were 
reminding  him  that  he  had  described  the  Conserva- 
tive interference  with  them  as  "  the  invasion  of  a 
free  people  ";  and  he  had  now  to  admit  to  himself 
that  this  was  election-rhetoric,  not  statesmanship. 
"  Young  England  "  was  meeting  in  a  corner  of  the 
Carlton  Club,  under  Randolph  Churchill,  and  plot- 
ting to  steal  the  thunder  of  his  democratic  oratory, 
or  pronouncing  such  oratory  "  sounding  brass  and 
tinkling  cymbals  to  the  Whigs,  for  they  have  always 
existed  by  corrupting  and  deceiving  the  people." 
Radicalism  was  compelling  him  to  recognise,  by 
forcing  him  to  take  the  utterly  unwelcome  Chamber- 
lain into  his  cabinet,  that  England  had  grievances 
to  redress  as  well  as  Greece  and  Bulgaria.  While 
he  hesitated,  bewildered,  the  Boers  rebelled,  and 
his  Budget  was  loaded  with  a  war-bill;  and  the 


158  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

Irish  rebelled,  and  his  fair  program  had  to  include 
a  Coercion  Bill;  and  Egypt  flamed  up  on  the 
southern  horizon.  He  had  only  one  consolation. 
Disraeli  died. 

For  our  purpose  we  need  consider  only  such 
measures  as  were  designed  for  the  improvement  of 
the  political  atmosphere  in  Great  Britain.  The  cor- 
ruption at  the  1880  election  had  been  so  flagrant 
that  the  sober  elements  of  the  country  sternly  de- 
manded a  measure  of  reform.  The  reader  will  have 
noticed,  from  the  figures  I  have  just  given,  that  the 
advantage  of  corruption  had  been  on  the  side  of  the 
Conservatives.  Four  hundred  and  eighty  Conserva- 
tive candidates  had  spent — to  speak  only  of  the 
declared  expenses — £951,000.  Four  hundred  and 
eighty-eight  Liberal  candidates  had  spent  only 
£771,540.  It  was  plainly  safe  for  a  Liberal  states- 
man to  give  effect  to  his  righteous  indignation,  and 
a  Corrupt  Practices  Bill  was  introduced  in  1881. 

The  House  of  Commons  is  always  amusing  on  such 
occasions.  It  is  healthily  united  in  reprobating  the 
evils  which  have  inspired  the  measure :  it  is  more 
than  willing  to  pass  a  measure  for  its  own  purifica- 
tion :  but  on  reflection  it  discovers  that  this  par- 
ticular measure  is  ill-advised.  "  The  reception  of 
the  Bill,"  says  the  Annual  Register,  "  was  favour- 
able, but  by  degrees  the  enthusiasm  which  its  ap- 
pearance had  kindled  began  to  slacken  even  amongst 
ardent  reformers."  The  penalties  were  too  severe. 
The  evil  would  merely  be  driven  underground.  And 
so  on.  In  brief,  the  Bill  was  withdrawn.  Mean- 
time, the  results  of  election-inquiries  were  pub- 
lished, and  public  opinion  demanded  action.  The 
Bill  was  reintroduced  in  1882,  and  got  as  far  as 
second  reading,  which  it  passed  without  division. 
Three  months  later  Mr  Gladstone  abandoned  it. 
"  The  opposition,"  says  our  authority,  "  was  of  that 
veiled  and  insidious  nature  which  is  more  frequently 


THE  ORGANISATION  OF  CORRUPTION    159 

fatal  to  a  proposed  reform  than  open  hostility." 
The  Government  then  proposed  a  Bill  for  the  dis- 
franchisement  of  the  towns  which  had  been  con- 
victed of  gross  corruption.  This  also  was  withdrawn. 

"It  is  difficult  for  any  one,"  Mr  Gladstone  wrote 
about  this  time,  "  except  those  who  pass  their  lives 
within  the  walls  of  Parliament,  to  understand  how 
vital  and  urgent  a  truth  it  is,  that  there  is  no  more 
urgent  demand,  there  is  no  aim  or  purpose  more 
absolutely  essential  to  the  future  victories  and  the 
future  efficiency  of  the  House  of  Commons,  than  that 
it  should  effect,  with  the  support  of  the  nation— 
for  it  can  be  effected  in  no  other  way — some  great 
reform  in  the  matter  of  its  procedure." 

The  young  enthusiasts  to  whom — on  the  apostolic 
principle  of  being  all  things  to  all  men — the  veteran 
statesman  wrote  this  may  have  wondered  why  he 
had  regarded  this  vital  need  so  complacently  during 
thirty  years  of  power.  Parliamentary  life  was  not 
more  in  need  of  reform  than  it  had  been  for  half 
a  century,  yet  Mr  Gladstone,  the  moralist  in  politics, 
had  not  hitherto  shown  any  tendency  to  iconoclasm. 
The  need  was  not  more  urgent  in  1883  except  in 
the  sense  that  the  wicked  features  of  Parliament 
now  prevented  Mr  Gladstone  from  passing  measures, 
instead  of  preventing  Mr  Disraeli.  However  that 
might  be,  he  was  now  bent  on  reform,  not  so  much 
with  the  support  of  the  country,  as  because  the 
country,  shocked  by  the  electoral  disclosures,  forced 
him  to  do  something;  and  the  Corrupt  Practices 
Bill  was  re-introduced.  It  forbade  the  creation  of 
fictitious  employment  for  voters  (with  which  Mr 
Gladstone  had  been  familiar  since  the  payment  of 
bandmen  at  his  own  first  election)  and  reduced  the 
limit  of  expenditure  by  candidates.  In  future  the 
candidate  must  not  spend  more  than  £350  to  ,£920 
(according  to  the  number  of  electors)  in  boroughs, 
or  more  than  £650  to  £1790  in  counties, 


160  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

The  uproar  began  at  once.    Tories  denounced  the 
proposals     as     "  grossly     unjust     and     enormously 
severe."     Radicals    like    Cowen    and    Tory   Demo- 
crats  like   Churchill   easily   and   scornfully    showed 
that  the  Bill  was  little  more  than  a  mockery.     A 
candidate   could   not   be   punished   for   myriads   of 
things  done  by  means  of  agents  or  bogus  clubs,  as 
the  measure  was  not  explicit  and  severe  enough, 
The  Birmingham  caucus  and  its  progeny  were  elo- 
quently   denounced    in   this    connection.      But   the 
Birmingham  prophet  was  in  the  ministry,  and  the 
independent  critics  represented  only  small  fractions 
and  might  be  ignored.    There  was  a  friendly  meet- 
ing in  the  wings  of  Parliament  of  the  great  pro- 
tagonists of  either  side  who  would  soon  cross  swords 
on  the  stage,  a  friendly  understanding  that  some  of 
the  harshness  of  the  measure  might  be  mitigated  in 
committee,  and  the  Bill  passed  the  second  reading 
without  a  division.    It  then  fell  under  the  customary 
long  and  cruel  mutilation.  Night  after  night  was  spent 
in  discussing  what  was  bribery,  undue  influence,  or 
treating,   until  the  press  broke  in  with  an  angry 
reminder  that  there  was  no  serious  doubt  in  the  mind 
of  the  country.    Radicals  pressed  for  amendments  to 
strengthen  the  measure.    Mr  Labouchere  asked  that 
it  be  made  illegal  to  obtain  a  title  by  helping  the 
election  of  another  person.    No  such  thing  was  ever 
done,  ministers  retorted.    Lord  Randolph  Churchill 
promptly  quoted  the  cases  of  Sir  R.   Green-Price 
and  Sir  H.  Johnstone,  who  had  been  thus  decorated 
for  resigning  seats  to  ministers.     Gladstone  indig- 
nantly  denied   that   there   had   been   any   "  trans- 
action "  :    a  very  satisfying  word. 

In  brief,  the  Corrupt  Practices  Act  was  added  to 
the  list  of  Liberal  triumphs.  We  shall  see  what  it 
did.  The  flagrant  purchase  of  votes,  which  was 
already  in  decay,  was  abolished,  but  other  forms  of 
corruption  arose.  Judges  soon  found,  they  said, 


THE  ORGANISATION  OF  CORRUPTION    161 

that  the  law  contemplated  only  the  period  immedi- 
ately before  an  election,  and  a  candidate  might  do 
a  good  deal  with  impunity  before  he  was  officially 
and  explicitly  recognised  as  candidate.  Moreover, 
it  still  cost  about  £5000  to  run  an  election-petition ; 
and,  as  long  as  both  sides  lived  in  glass  houses,  it 
was  indiscreet  to  throw  stones. 

One  thing  Mr  Gladstone  did  do  in  the  reform  of 
Parliamentary  procedure,  but  it  is  usually  omitted 
from  the  high  chronicle  of  Gladstonian  achievements. 
He  introduced  the  closure.  The  debates  on  the 
Irish  Bills  in  1881  threatened  to  pass  all  records, 
and  Speaker  Brand  astonished  the  House  (or  a  large 
part  of  it)  by  arbitrarily  cutting  off  the  stream  of 
heated  and  frivolous  rhetoric.  Liberal  historians  are 
eager  to  make  it  clear  that  Brand  did  this  entirely 
of  his  own  initiative.  We  could  hardly  be  charged 
with  undue  suspicion  if  we  assumed  that  the  occu- 
pants of  the  Front  Bench  were  rather  less  surprised 
by  this  coup  d'Etat  (as  the  Conservatives  called  it) 
than  others  were,  but  the  time  would  come  when  the 
closure  would  be  turned  against  the  Liberals,  and 
their  torrent  of  indignation  would  have  flowed  less 
easily  if  it  could  be  shown  that  they  themselves 
constructed  the  "guillotine."  It  was,  in  fact,  one 
of  the  most  material  of  their  achievements.  The 
waste  of  time  in  speeches  which  never  influence  a 
single  vote  in  the  House  is  scandalous  enough  to-day. 
In  the  nineteenth  century  it  was  appalling.  It  may 
be  put  to  the  credit  of  Mr  Gladstone  and  his  col- 
leagues that  they  at  least  did  not  rebuke  the  friendly 
Speaker  for  his  disinterested  innovation. 

Another  point  of  legislative  reform  arose  in  1884. 
Gladstone  passed  a  third  extension  of  the  franchise, 
and  the  Lords  rejected  his  Bill.  They  would  not 
claim,  one  of  the  leading  speakers  in  the  Lords  said, 
that  the  state  of  representation  (by  which  only  three 
million  adults  had  the  vote)  was  "  absolutely  per- 
L 


162  THE  TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

feet,"  but  they  would  say  that  "  under  the  present 
franchise-system  labour  was  amply  and  fairly  repre- 
sented." The  country  quite  understood  the  situa- 
tion. All  the  resonant  verbiage  about  the  Constitu- 
tion and  political  wisdom  was  intended  to  conceal 
a  party-struggle.  Such  rhetoric  never  does  deceive 
anybody,  but  Parliamentary  tradition  demands  it. 
Mr  Gladstone  was  to  complete  the  extension  of  the 
franchise  by  a  Redistribution  Bill,  and  the  Con- 
servatives wished  to  compel  him  to  introduce  the 
two  Bills  together  so  that  they  might  know  the 
worst.  He  was  just  as  eager  to  get  his  party- 
advantages  in  two  instalments. 

To  the  growing  Radical  element  in  the  country 
the  situation  was  welcome.  The  power  of  the  Lords 
was,  as  all  now  recognise,  a  mediaeval  anomaly  in 
our  Constitution,  a  machine  for  the  enforcing  of  the 
Conservative  sentiment;  and  the  cry  gladly  spread 
from  city  to  city:  "End  them  or  Mend  them." 
To  the  end  of  his  political  life  Mr  Gladstone  shrank 
from  that  cry.  The  Whig  flesh  quivered  beneath 
his  Liberal  skin  whenever  Radical  supporters  pointed 
out  this  "  vital  need."  There  was  no  need  for  the 
Queen  to  impress  on  him,  as  she  did,  that  he  must 
come  to  terms  with  his  opponents  rather  than  listen 
to  counsels  of  that  "  organic  change."  He  was 
never  a  thorough  democrat.  Once  more  he  met 
Lord  Salisbury  in  the  wings  of  the  Parliamentary 
theatre  and  arranged  the  forthcoming  combat.  He 
produced  his  redistribution-plans,  and  the  astute 
Conservative  statesman  made  his  terms.  A  Bill  was 
framed  which  would  "  satisfy  all  parties,"  as  the 
Times  said :  in  other  words,  the  disfranchisement 
of  boroughs  was  nicely  arranged  so  that  the  Con- 
servatives should  not  lose  more  than  the  Liberals. 
The  Bills  passed,  and  the  House  of  Lords  kept  its 
flag  flying  over  the  citadel  of  popular  representation. 

These  "  reforms  "  were  followed  by  one  of  the 


THE  ORGANISATION  OF  CORRUPTION    163 

most  singular  and  most  tortuous  developments  of 
parliamentary  life  since  the  eighteenth  century. 
The  one  weakness  of  the  admirable  party-machine 
which  had  now  been  evolved  on  both  sides  was  the 
need  of  a  "  platform  "  composed  of  so  many  impres- 
sive "  planks."  The  proverbial  visitor  from  Mars 
might  imagine  that  a  statesman's  task  was  simple. 
He  had  merely  to  scan  the  face  of  the  country  for 
grievances  and  abuses,  and  set  to  work  to  remove 
them.  Better-informed  people  know  that  this  ideal 
simplicity  is  the  simplicity  of  children.  Each  party 
has  vested  interests  or  vested  prejudices,  repre- 
sented on  its  pay-roll,  and  to  select  a  grievance  for 
remedy  without  considering  these  would  be  the 
height  of  political  unwisdom.  Indeed,  it  was  be- 
coming increasingly  difficult  for  both  parties  to  make 
a  constructive  program  for  England.  Not  that 
dragons  were  now  scarce  after  all  the  glorious  politi- 
cal St  Georges  of  the  last  hundred  years.  The  next 
forty  years  of  legislation  would  prove  how  much 
there  was  still  to  be  done.  Social  legislation  had, 
in  fact,  barely  commenced.  But  the  popular  de- 
mand was  rapidly  assuming  a  form  and  an  accent 
which  must  intimidate  any  statesman  who  chooses 
half  his  colleagues  from  the  peerage  and  his  most 
necessary  supporters  from  among  the  wealthy.  For- 
tunately, the  evergreen  problem  of  Ireland  furnished 
a  legitimate  and  laudable  distraction. 

German  trouble  in  Africa,  Russian  trouble  in 
Asia,  Mahdi  trouble  in  the  Sudan,  and  at  last  the 
death  of  Gordon,  brought  the  ministry  of  righteous- 
ness to  a  close,  and  statesmen  began  to  deck  their 
windows  for  an  election.  Salisbury  carried  on  for 
a  time  with  "  a  Government  of  Caretakers,"  but 
an  election  in  December  (1885)  was  certain.  For 
this  the  Radicals  prepared  a  formidable  program  at 
which  Mr  Gladstone  shuddered.  He  began  rather 
to  educate  himself  in  Irish  politics.  There  followed 


164  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

one  of  those  obscure  passages  in  English  politics 
which  no  independent  historian  can  illumine,  and 
the  expert  has  no  desire  to  illumine.  A  few  years 
later  Gladstone,  angry  at  the  way  in  which  Lord 
Salisbury  had  defeated  his  hopeful  plan  of  returning 
to  power  on  an  Irish  cry,  sternly  denounced  the  Con- 
servatives for  making  a  secret  promise  of  Home 
Rule  to  Parnell  on  the  eve  of  the  election,  and  thus 
obtaining  power  under  false  pretences. 

The  facts  will  illustrate  the  ingenious  transforma- 
tions of  parliamentary  corruption  under  pressure  of 
an  improved  environment.  Parnell  himself  stated, 
and  it  is  not  disputed,  that  on  the  eve  of  the  election 
in  1885  the  Conservative  Lord-Lieutenant,  Lord 
Carnarvon,  consulted  him  on  the  Irish  question  and 
gave  him  the  impression  that  something  like  Home 
Rule  might  be  expected  of  the  Conservatives.  He 
regarded  this  as  an  electoral  bargain  with  the  Con- 
servatives, and  the  Irish  vote  in  England  went 
against  the  Liberals.  Lord  Salisbury  himself  pub- 
licly used  language  which  was  fairly  construed  as  a 
promise  to  grant  a  legislative  body  in  Ireland. 
Gladstone,  on  the  other  hand,  was  silent.  Lord 
Hartington  and  Mr  Chamberlain  had  at  once  vio- 
lently denounced  the  project,  and  the  unity  of  the 
party  was  threatened  if  Gladstone  made  a  bid  for 
the  Irish  vote.  In  plain  English,  both  the  leaders 
were  playing  with  the  Irish  question  for  election 
purposes.  If  either  could  get  a  secure  majority 
independently  of  the  Irish,  he  would  do  nothing. 

The  Irish  had  helped  the  Conservatives  to  unseat 
Gladstone.  They  caused  him  to  lose  a  score  of  seats 
at  the  election.  At  the  close  of  the  election  it  was 
found  that  the  Liberals  (335)  were  just  equal  to  the 
Conservatives  (249)  and  Nationalists  (86),  and  deep 
was  the  disgust  of  all  parties.  Parnell  angrily  re- 
called the  bargain  with  Lord  Carnarvon,  and  Glad- 
stone denounced  it  with  fervid  oratory.  Lord  Salis- 


THE  ORGANISATION  OF  CORRUPTION    165 

bury  repudiated  the  charge  with  equal  fervour. 
Lord  Carnarvon  had  had  no  instructions  whatever. 
He  had  acted  merely  as  an  individual.  Lord  Car- 
narvon confirmed  this,  but  he  added  that  he  had 
afterwards  told  Lord  Salisbury  of  the  "  conversa- 
tions," and  this  and  the  ambiguity  of  Lord  Salis- 
bury's own  language  will  suffice  for  most  people. 
They  may  or  may  not  agree  with  Mr  Chamberlain 
that  "  a  strategic  movement  of  that  kind,  executed 
in  opposition  to  the  notorious  convictions  of  the  men 
who  effected  it,  carried  out  for  party  purposes  and 
party  purposes  alone,  is  the  most  flagrant  instance 
of  political  dishonesty  this  country  has  ever  known." 
They  may  think  Lord  Hartington  equally  ignorant 
of  precedent  when  he  protested  that  the  Tories  had 
deeply  impaired  "  political  morality."  But  there 
will  be  little  difference  of  opinion  if  it  is  proposed 
to  apply  to  the  whole  situation  the  motto  given  on 
the  title-page  of  this  book. 

Whatever  allowance  we  may  be  disposed  to  make 
for  Mr  Gladstone's  difficulties,  he  was  heavily  puni- 
shed. On  December  17th  he  sat  down  to  write  to 
Lord  Hartington  one  of  those  vague  and  politic 
statements  of  his  position  which  were  designed  to 
satisfy  an  anti-Home-Ruler,  yet  leave  the  way  open 
for  considering  Home  Rule.  He  had  just  forwarded 
this  disavowal  of  any  "  intentions  "  in  the  matter 
when  the  Standard  reached  him  from  London  with 
a  plain  statement  of  the  plans  he  was  so  anxious  to 
conceal.  By  an  extraordinary  indiscretion,  which 
must  have  strained  the  veteran  statesman's  Chris- 
tian endurance  to  its  limit,  Herbert  Gladstone  had 
given  away  his  father's  secret.  It  was  an  awful 
hour  for  so  august  a  moralist.  His  diplomatic  re- 
sources were  quite  unequal  to  the  task  of  disavow- 
ing the  plan  without  disavowing  it,  and  the  crisis 
came  quickly.  He  boldly  shattered  the  Liberal 
party,  replaced  the  lost  wings  by  an  alliance  with 


166  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

the  Irish,  and  assumed  power  as  a  resolute  and  con- 
vinced Home-Ruler.  I  need  merely  recall  how  his 
first  Irish  Government  Bill  was  rejected  on  the 
second  reading,  how  Gladstone  dissolved  and  made 
a  leonine  fight,  and  how  the  Conservatives  triumphed 
over  the  dispirited  and  divided  Liberals:*  Chamber- 
lain and  Hartington  had  at  least  the  decency  to  wait 
a  few  years  before  joining  the  party  which  they  had 
so  recently  accused  of  a  flagrant  violation  of  the 
elements  of  political  morality. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  follow  the  intrigues,  schemes 
and  combinations  of  the  next  six  years  of  Conserva- 
tive power.  With  a  majority  of  one  hundred  and 
eighteen  over  the  combined  Home-Rulers,  the 
Unionists  had  a  secure  term  of  office,  and  they  could 
afford  to  laugh  when  Gladstone  indignantly  disputed 
their  right  to  use  the  closure.  Another  political 
development  had  meantime  appeared  which  is  more 
material  to  our  subject. 

The  Birmingham  Caucus,  which  had  "  gingered  " 
the  Liberal  party  for  ten  years,  found  itself  in  a 
peculiar  situation  when  its  high  priest  repudiated 
the  leadership  of  Gladstone.  For  years  the  chief 
engineer  in  charge  of  the  machine,  Mr  Schnadhorst, 
had  laid  it  down  that  members  of  Parliament  must 
"  sacrifice  their  personal  convictions "  whenever 
loyalty  to  the  party  demanded  this.  They  had 
driven  the  independent  Cowen  out  of  political  life 
at  Newcastle.  They  had  forced  a  terrible  struggle 
on  Forster  at  Bradford.  They  had  showered  ad- 
monitory telegrams  on  any  constituency  whose  re- 
presentative swerved  a  hair's  breadth  from  party- 
loyalty.  This,  we  must  remember,  was  not  the 
dictation  of  the  party-officials  at  Westminster,  but 
the  spontaneous  action  of  free  provincial  Liberals. 

The  men  of  Birmingham  were  now  hoist  with 
their  own  petard.  Schnadhorst  almost  alone  passed 
to  the  Gladstonians,  and  the  caucus  he  left  behind 


THE  ORGANISATION  OF  CORRUPTION    167 

him  was  excommunicated  by  its  daughters  through- 
out the  kingdom.  There  were  still  many  who  wanted 
a  provincial  centre  of  Liberalism  apart  from  West- 
minster, and  a  northern  city  was  suggested,  but 
the  heads  of  the  party  now  got  it  transferred  to 
London.  Schnadhorst  became  secretary  both  of  the 
National  Liberal  Federation  and  the  Central  Liberal 
Association.  Candidates  would  now  be  selected, 
programs  arranged,  inconvenient  matters  adjusted 
under  the  eye  of  the  oligarchs.  There  were,  it  is 
true,  spurts  of  rebellion.  Labouchere  and  a  few 
strong  friends  spoke  with  scorn  of  the  "Caucusians." 
The  Reynolds  Newspaper  Radicals  pelted  "  the 
Schnadhorst  machine."  The  workers  began  to 
choose  candidates  of  their  own.  Gladstone  surveyed 
his  kingdom  with  some  disgust,  and  he  had  little 
or  no  share  in  the  "  Newcastle  Program  "  which  was 
designed  to  cement  the  cracking  structure.  To  the 
last  he  was  a  Whig,  and  Whig  methods  of  ensuring 
loyalty  were — as  a  study  of  the  honour-lists  of  the 
next  Government  will  show — preferable  to  Radical 
concessions.  I  will  tell  later  how  Cecil  Rhodes  was 
permitted,  even  under  Gladstone,  to  weight  the 
Liberal  scales.  For  the  moment  it  suffices  to  point 
out  that  the  new  machine,  erected  at  Birmingham, 
now  passed  under  the  full  power  of  whips  and 
leaders,  and  the  quite  modern  phase  of  political  life 
began. 

The  pendulum  swung  back  in  1892,  and  Home 
Rule  returned  with  a  meagre  majority  of  fifty-five. 
It  meant  that  Gladstone  must  press  into  service 
representatives  of  every  minority,  and  he  confronted 
his  last  task  with  a  fair  show  of  courage.  Radicals 
who  scorned  "  Liberal  fossils "  were  yoked  with 
Imperialists  like  Rosebery.  Through  the  intermin- 
able, stormy  debates  of  1893  the  old  man  drove  his 
unsteady  team.  For  the  first  time  in  his  life  he  saw 
blows  exchanged  in  the  House  of  Commons.  For 


168  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

the  tenth  time  he  saw  the  Lords  calmly  reject  what 
the  representatives  of  the  people  had  devised  after 
seven  months  of  unparalleled  struggle.  For  a 
moment  the  thunder  rumbled  in  the  bowels  of  the 
slowing  volcano.  Would  he  crown  his  Liberal  career 
by  attacking  the  greatest  anomaly  of  English  politi- 
cal life  ?  The  Lords,  defiantly,  mutilated  and  forced 
him  to  abandon  his  Employers  Liability  Bill ;  muti- 
lated his  Local  Government  Bill.  They  should  see, 
he  muttered.  But  Gladstone  was  eighty-four  years 
old.  Wearily  he  took  off  the  helmet  and  cuirass, 
and  laid  the  lance  by  the  wall;  and,  after  the 
shabbiest  dismissal  from  the  Queen  that  a  great 
statesman  ever  experienced,  he  passed  from  the 
great  stage. 

While  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  write  a  political 
chronicle,  I  have  felt  it  material  to  follow  in  some 
detail  the  course  of  events  since  the  day  when  Glad- 
stone took  the  lead  of  one  of  the  great  political 
parties.  His  career  is  a  curiously  sensitive  mirror 
of  the  modern  political  world.  He  had  entered  it 
with,  not  merely  the  ideals,  but  the  sentiments  of 
a  zealous  clergyman;  and  at  the  outset  he  found 
his  way  smoothed  by  electoral  corruption,  yet  for 
forty  years  mooted  no  plan  of  attacking  that  cor- 
ruption. Throughout  his  long  life  he  acknowledged 
the  corruption  of  British  politics  and  politicians. 
In  expressing  his  estimate  of  Disraeli  he  affected  no 
reserve  at  all,  but  even  in  making  general  state- 
ments about  his  fellow-actors  he  used  language 
which  in  his  mouth  must  be  regarded  as  very  damna- 
tory. Lord  Morley,  in  his  discreet  biography,  allows 
his  sentiment  to  appear  repeatedly.  "  '  Man,'  he 
often  used  to  say,  '  is  the  least  comprehensible  of 
creatures,  and  of  men  the  most  incomprehensible 
are  the  politicians.' '  He  repeats  this  to  Lord 
Acton,  apropos  of  Chamberlain,  in  1887  :  "  It  is  one 
of  my  common  sayings  that  to  me  characters  of  the 


THE  ORGANISATION  OF  CORRUPTION    169 

political    class    are   the   most   mysterious   of   all   I 
meet."* 

In  such  phrases  one  recognises  a  desperate  attempt 
to  cultivate  Christian  charity.  Politicians  are  not 
66  incomprehensible."  They  are  amongst  the  most 
easily  read  characters.  What  Mr  Gladstone  obvi- 
ously means  is  that  they  are  either  corrupt  or  in- 
comprehensible, and  both  his  creed  and  his  profes- 
sion and  esprit  de  corps  dissuade  him  from  saying 
the  former.  In  his  last  years  he  was  more  candid. 
In  his  summaries  of  conversations  with  the  retired 
statesman,  Lord  Morley  says :  "  He  has  not  been 
in  public  life  all  these  years  without  rubbing 
shoulders  with  plenty  of  baseness  on  every  scale, 
and  plenty  of  pettiness  of  every  hue,  but  he  has 
always  kept  his  eyes  well  above  it."  Certainly  no 
one  will  accuse  him  of  baseness,  but  we  have  seen 
him  over  and  over  again  wrestling  with  his  stubborn 
conscience  and  doing  things  which,  had  he  remained 
out  of  politics,  he  would  never  have  done.  Perhaps 
much  of  this  was  in  his  mind  when  he  said,  in  1891 : 
"  I  have  never  advised  any  individual,  as  to  whom 
I  have  been  consulted,  to  enter  the  House  of  Com- 
mons." It  was  not  by  his  advice  that  Herbert 
Gladstone  entered  politics.  Quite  clearly  it  was,  in 
Gladstone's  view,  a  tainted  world.  There  is  no  more 
convincing  illustration  of  this  than  the  casuistry 
which  the  stalwart  Puritan  himself  develops,  time 
after  time,  in  face  of  a  moral  issue.  Lord  Morley 's 
work  is  a  noble  study  of  a  noble  man.  It  is  also, 
coming  from  a  politician,  a  terrible  indictment  of 
politics. 

*  Life  of  Gladstone,  iii.,  p.  88  and  p.  3->5. 


CHAPTER  X 

OUR  POLITICIANS  AND  THE  NATIONAL  CRISIS 

WE  have  now  reached  our  own  generation  and  our 
existing  political  system,  and  it  would  be  superflu- 
ous to  follow  the  chronicle  year  by  year.  We  have 
seen  the  slow  transformations  of  a  political  scheme 
which  was  designed  to  meet  conditions  of  an  entirely 
different  character,  yet  has  hi  every  decade  of  the 
last  hundred  and  fifty  years  resisted  adaptation  to 
a  new  world  and  a  higher  public  sentiment.  We 
have  seen  every  reform  trimmed  by  the  politicians 
themselves  to  the  smallest  dimensions  which  public 
opinion  would  suffer,  and  usually  followed  by  the 
transformation  of  the  old  abuse  into  a  new  type  of 
corruption.  We  have,  I  trust,  gathered  the  essential 
differences  between  the  national  business  and  a 
private  concern,  between  the  political  and  any  other 
profession.  The  national  business  may  deteriorate 
while  the  national  managers  prosper.  The  national 
business  may  be  entrusted  to  men  for  their  oratorical 
qualifications  or  their  dexterity  in  intrigue,  while 
private  business  scorns  such  gifts.  The  national 
business  is  beset  by  the  peculiar  difficulty  that  two 
rival  firms  have  a  monopoly  of  its  prestige  and 
emoluments;  that  the  primary  attention  of  each  is 
devoted  to  outwitting  its  opponent;  and  that  each 
commands  a  vast  organisation  for  dazing  and  duping 
and  befooling  the  ultimate  controllers  of  the  nation's 
destiny. 

We  have  now  to  study  the  system  as  we  find  it  in 
action  in  our  own  generation,  and  inquire  how  far 

170 


POLITICIANS   AND   NATIONAL  CRISIS    171 

the  widespread  scorn  of  political  life  is  justified.  I 
propose  to  test  this  first  by  the  behaviour  of  our 
politicians  during  the  strain  of  the  great  war.  Until 
only  a  few  years  ago  it  was  customary  to  pronounce 
the  party-system  superior  to  any  that  could  be 
devised  for  the  conduct  of  our  national  life.  We 
were  then  surprised  to  find  that,  the  moment  an 
unusual  effort  was  required  of  our  statesmanship, 
men  on  both  sides  suavely  assured  us  that  the  party- 
system  must  be  entirely  suspended.  We  are  not 
clear  about  the  situation  to-day.  Large  numbers  of 
our  journalists  and  political  writers  declare,  or  ex- 
press a  hope,  that  this  party-system  has  gone  for 
ever.  A  minority  of  our  politicians  would  have  it 
restored  at  once.  The  majority  seem,  as  far  as  one 
can  understand,  to  intimate  that  they  think  it  may 
be  restored  with  safety  when  the  strain  on  our 
national  machinery  is  somewhat  relaxed;  which  to 
the  simple-minded  citizen  looks  uncommonly  like  a 
confession  that  party-government  is  an  inferior 
device.  Since,  however,  most  of  us  regard  a 
national  business  with  a  turnover  of  £2,000,000,000 
a  year,  with  the  most  delicate  and  far-reaching  of 
problems,  as,  even  in  time  of  peace,  a  thing  to  be 
entrusted  only  to  the  highest  ability  we  can  com- 
mand, we  will  patiently  examine  the  lessons  of  the 
last  few  years. 

As  we  read  history  to-day,  the  outstanding  issue 
for  our  national  economy  in  the  few  years  before 
1914  was  that  of  defence.  The  outstanding  fact  is 
that  nothing  received  less  attention,  and  the  educa- 
tion of  the  public  was  left  almost  entirely  to  peace- 
enthusiasts  who  were  so  resolute  that,  if  Germany 
had  cared  to  say  that  her  new  ships  were  merely  for 
export  to  Patagonia,  they  would  have  believed  it. 
It  is  true  that  in  Mr  Asquith's  cabinet  the  situation 
was  more  seriously  discussed.  Sir  Edward  Grey  and 
Mr  Churchill  contended  earnestly  for  an  adequate 


172  THE  TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

defence  against  German  possibilities.  Other,  and 
more  numerous,  members  of  the  cabinet  repeated 
the  shallow  stuff  that  was  being  talked  all  over 
England.  The  Kaiser  (who  had  already  baulked 
the  two  Hague  Conferences)  was  the  Prince  of 
Peace  :  poor  Germany  was  merely  intimidated  by 
English  Jingoists  :  and  so  on.  Mr  Asquith,  most 
accomplished  of  politicians,  knew  that  his  first  duty 
was  to  "hold  the  party  together."  He  held  it 
together,  by  doing  nothing. 

In  1912  the  situation  became  very  grave.  In 
February  of  that  year  Lord  Haldane  made  his 
famous  visit  to  Berlin.  Let  us  take  Mr  Asquith  at 
his  word.  He  told  us  in  October,  1914,  that,  when 
Haldane  reported  that  the  Germans  would  agree  to 
some  relaxation  of  the  naval  race  on  condition  that 
we  agreed  to  be  neutral  in  case  of  war,  he  at  once 
saw  the  depravity  of  Germany.  His  impression 
must  have  been  put  beyond  reasonable  doubt  during 
the  next  few  months.  In  the  spring  the  French 
ambassador  at  Berlin,  M.  Cambon,  sent  home  to 
Paris  a  minute  and  documented  and  most  grave  re- 
port on  the  state  of  Germany.  He  proved  that  the 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  Germans  wanted  war. 
One  may  assume  that  this  document  was  forwarded 
to  Sir  E.  Grey  and  Mr  Asquith.  A  few  months  later, 
again,  Mr  Roosevelt,  who  was  by  no  means  anti- 
German  at  that  time,  visited  Berlin.  On  his  return 
to  London  he  had  lunch  with  Mr  Asquith,  Sir  E. 
Grey,  and  Lord  Haldane.  He  very  earnestly  im- 
pressed on  them  his  conviction  that  Germany  was 
preparing  for  war  with  France  and  England. 

Still  the  Liberal  supporters  of  the  Government 
flooded  England  with  assurances  of  German  fra- 
ternity, and  Mr  Asquith  sat  dumb.  In  October  Sir 
John  Brunner,  the  President  of  the  National  Liberal 
Federation,  sent  a  circular  letter  to  the  chairmen  of 
all  the  local  Liberal  Associations  in  England  ancj 


POLITICIANS   AND   NATIONAL   CRISIS    173 

Scotland  and  Wales.  He  reminded  them  that  the 
sacred  Liberal  principle  was  "  peace,  retrenchment, 
and  reform,"  and  insisted  that  this  was  the  time  to 
enforce  it  (on  the  Government).  He  opined  that  the 
"  false  and  shameful  panic  of  1909 "  (when  the 
nation  had  been  partially  awakened  to  the  truth) 
had  unhinged  the  brains  of  many,  and  the  calm 
sanity  of  the  retrenchment-Liberals  must  speak.  He 
argued  that  our  "  entanglement  "  with  France  en- 
dangered our  precious  good  relations  with  Germany. 
He  did  not  expressly  urge  us  to  tear  up  our  entente 
with  France,  though  this  was  obviously  suggested, 
but  he  did  press  the  Liberal  Party  to  demand  that 
the  Government  should  meet  Germany  by  relinquish- 
ing the  right  of  capture  at  sea  during  war ! 

In  the  following  month  there  was  a  public  con- 
ference on  Anglo-German  relations  at  the  Caxton 
Hall,  when  these  things  were  repeated.  What  did 
the  Government  do  ?  It  reported  to  Parliament  that 
there  was  an  improvement  in  our  relations  with  Ger- 
many. It  lulled  nearly  the  whole  country  at  a  time 
when  Mr  Asquith  says  that  even  he  had  at  length 
perceived  the  wicked  designs  of  Germany.  It  en- 
couraged the  disdainful  and  insulting  reception  of 
Lord  Roberts  and  his  warnings.  It  complacently 
regarded  the  saturation  of  its  own  party  with  a  silly 
and  disarming  optimism  by  manufacturers  who  were 
grossly  ignorant  of  the  facts  and  fanatics  who  were 
supremely  indifferent  to  facts.  Why?  It  would  be 
interesting  to  ascertain  the  amounts  given  to  the 
funds  of  the  Liberal  party  by  the  wealthy  manufac- 
turers and  enthusiasts  who  from  1909  to  1914  kept 
the  bandage  on  the  eyes  of  England.  In  any  case, 
Mr  Asquith's  business  was  to  hold  the  party 
together. 

It  would  be  a  mistake  to  blame  the  Liberals  only. 
They  have  the  more  blame  because  they  were  in 
power,  and  had  information  which  could  have  been 


174  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

used  without  any  overt  provocation  to  Germany. 
The  statesman  who  asks  us  to  believe  that  the  only 
alternative  to  the  wicked  policy  of  1909-1914  was  to 
shout  from  the  housetops  that  Germany  was  pre- 
paring for  war,  has  a  queer  idea  of  statesmanship. 
We  might  have  done  infinitely  less  than  the  Ger- 
mans, who  almost  shouted  their  preparations  from 
the  housetops,  did,  yet  have  made  such  preparation 
that  the  war  would  never  have  taken  place.  What 
inflamed  our  pacifists  was  our  naval  preparation, 
which  was  done  quite  openly.  Even  our  naval 
arrangement  with  France  was  plainly  announced  to 
the  world  by  the  transfer  of  the  Mediterranean  fleet. 
Had  we  been  equally  prudent — it  is  not  a  question 
of  boldness — in  educating  the  country,  purifying  the 
diplomatic  service,  and  seeing  that  our  military 
status  corresponded,  not  to  Lord  Haldane's  theories, 
but  to  the  known  weakness  of  France  and  Russia, 
there  would  have  been  no  war.  Neither  party 
sought  these  things.  It  was  left  to  a  few  men  out- 
side both,  or  all,  parties  to  warn  their  fellows ;  and 
politicians  spoiled  their  work  by  repeating  month 
after  month  that  our  relations  with  Germany  were 
good,  and  they  were  the  people  who  knew. 

There  was  a  scene  in  the  House  in  November, 
1912,  which  recalls  St.  Augustine's  famous  picture 
of  the  factions  contending  in  the  Circus  at  Carthage 
while  the  Vandals  hammered  at  the  gate  of  the  city. 
A  group  of  Conservatives  achieved  that  thrilling 
triumph  of  the  system,  a  defeat  of  the  Government 
by  a  snap- vote.  Sir  F.  Banbury  rose  and  moved  an 
amendment  of  which  he  had  given  no  notice.  The 
subject  was,  of  course,  Irish,  not  English.  The 
situation  was  plotted.  The  debate  was  rapidly 
wound  up,  before  the  Government  Whips  could  fill 
up  the  thin  House,  and  the  Conservatives  won  by 
228  votes  to  206.  The  adjournment  was  moved, 
and,  as  ministers  left  the  House,  Conservative 


POLITICIANS   AND   NATIONAL  CRISIS    175 

members  jumped  on  the  seats,  waved  their  arms 
like  schoolboys  on  the  last  day  of  the  term,  and 
shouted:  "  Good-bye,  take  your  pensions."  Mr 
Asquith,  whose  majority  rose  next  day  to  119,  pro- 
perly refused  to  resign.  Mr  Bonar  Law  denounced 
his  right  honourable  friend's  procedure  as  "  tyranni- 
cal and  revolutionary."  To  his  own  followers  he 
commended  the  advice  which  Redmond  had  given 
the  Irish  in  1905,  which  was  to  "  make  the  continued 
life  of  the  Government  in  this  Parliament  im- 
possible." 

They  did  their  best.  These  Liberals  were,  on  the 
best  traditions  of  the  game,  cheating  them  of  the 
emoluments  of  office.  The  most  sober  reporters 
assure  us  that  many  of  the  Conservative  members 
became  "  hysterical."  Sir  W.  Bull  was  expelled 
from  the  House  for  calling  Mr  Asquith  a  traitor  (not 
for  his  behaviour  in  regard  to  national  defence). 
Government  speakers  were  refused  a  hearing.  Even 
curses  were  heard  amid  the  din  and  the  roar  of 
"  Adjourn."  The  adjournment  was  forced.  As 
Mr  Churchill  left  the  House,  some  of  the  Tory  gentle- 
men shouted  at  him,  "  Rats."  He  made  the  mild 
retort  of  waving  his  handkerchief,  and  Mr  Ronald 
M'Neill  threw  a  heavy  book  at  him,  hitting  him  in 
the  face.  The  floor  was  strewn  with  papers  which 
the  representatives  of  the  British  people  threw  at 
each  other  across  the  House.  From  the  House  the 
mad  passion  spread  to  the  country,  and  our  people, 
who  ought  to  have  been  gravely  considering  the  im- 
pending disaster  to  Europe,  were  vehemently  urged 
by  one  set  of  orators  to  see  that  Mr  Asquith  had 
trampled  on  the  sacred  traditions  of  Parliament, 
and  by  another  set  to  appreciate  that  he  was  merely 
keeping  a  group  of  greedy  adventurers  out  of  office. 

That  scene — and  it  was  nearly  repeated  in  1913 — 
will  live  when  the  last  chapter  of  British  history  is 
written.  Possibly  Mr  Bonar  Law  is  not  to-day 


176  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

proud  of  the  prominent  part  he  took  in  it.  There 
is  no  excuse  for  any  of  them  except  the  precious 
exigencies  of  the  party-system.  If  Mr  Bonar  Law 
had  not  expended  so  much  fiery  rhetoric,  the  cry  of 
the  clubs  and  Press  would  have  been  changed  from 
"B.M.G."  to  "B.L.M.G."  As  for  national  in- 
terests .  .  .  We  would  muddle  through. 

In  the  early  part  of  1913  the  German  Government 
was  forced  to  make  its  preparations  so  openly  that 
military  authorities  actually  predicted  a  crisis  in  the 
summer  of  1914.  It  added  200,000  men  to  its  peace- 
army,  raised  the  war-chest  from  six  to  eighteen 
millions  sterling,  and  voted  an  immediate  expendi- 
ture on  the  army  of  £50,000,000.  The  widening  and 
deepening  of  the  Kiel  Canal  approached  its  com- 
pletion. War-literature  in  Germany  rose  to  several 
hundred  volumes  per  year.  The  Navy  League  and 
Pan-German  League  enlisted  millions  of  members 
and  drenched  every  village  with  bellicose  oratory. 
It  was  known  that  the  Kaiser,  threatened  with  dis- 
placement by  his  son,  solemnly  rebuked  by  the  Reich- 
stag for  professing  friendship  with  England,  was  in 
open  alliance  with  the  war-party.  Even  the  Socialists 
voted  the  extraordinary  military  grants. 

What  were  our  politicians  doing  ?  They  were 
busy  with  Ireland.  They  were  attending  to  the 
Welsh  Church.  They  were  facetiously  discussing 
women-suffrage.  They  were,  above  all,  playing  the 
party-game.  A  new  Franchise  Bill  was  in  the  House, 
and,  as  usual,  it  tended  (or  was  supposed)  to  in- 
crease the  Liberal,  and  diminish  the  Conservative, 
strength  in  the  country.  There  was  war  to  the 
knife — at  all  events,  almost  to  the  fist.  When  the 
closure  was  used  to  check  a  stream  of  oratory  on 
women-suffrage  (which  the  House  was  determined 
not  to  grant)  Mr  F.  E.  Smith  denounced  the  Govern- 
ment for  its  "  brutal  exercise  of  superior  strength." 
Mr  Bonar  Law  declared  that  the  Government  was 


POLITICIANS   AND   NATIONAL   CRISIS    17? 

"in  the  gutter,"  and  could  not  degrade  Parliament 
any  further.  But  whenever  the  question  of  our 
national  defence  or  the  prospect  in  Europe  arose, 
there  was  a  beautifully  harmonious  optimism. 

So,  amid  belated  echoes  of  Marconi  scandals  and 
Indian  silver  scandals  and  violent  mutual  accusa- 
tions of  greed  and  dishonour,  we  lumbered  into  the 
war-zone.  The  fatal  year  opened  with  an  attempt 
by  Mr  Lloyd  George  to  secure  naval  reductions. 
Germany  was  quite  friendly,  and  not  in  the  least 
likely  to  challenge  us,  he  said.  The  speech  re- 
sounded throughout  the  country,  and  great  meet- 
ings clamoured  for  our  grasping  the  outstretched 
hand  of  the  Kaiser.  In  the  previous  year  the  French 
Government  had  stolen  (though  its  agents)  a  confi- 
dential military  memorandum  at  Berlin,  in  which 
it  was  said :  "  We  must  accustom  our  people  to 
think  that  an  offensive  war  on  our  part  is  a  neces- 
sity. .  .  We  must  so  manage  affairs  that  an  out- 
break will  be  considered  a  relief,  because  after  it 
would  come  decades  of  peace  and  prosperity,  as  after 
1870."  One  may  confidently  assume  that  this  was 
communicated  to  the  British  Cabinet.  One  may 
suppose  that  the  leaders  of  the  Opposition  were 
not  left  in  total  ignorance.  But  Mr  Bonar  Law, 
outside  Parliament,  scouted  the  danger  of  war 
almost  as  disdainfully  as  Mr  Lloyd  George  did. 

In  February  there  were  futile  debates  on  the 
purity  of  political  life  and  the  sale  of  honours,  to 
which  I  will  return  later.  The  system  was  declared 
spotless,  and  reform  was  refused.  Then  the  House 
settled  down,  for  the  thousandth  time,  to  a  lengthy 
and  glorious  debate  on  Ireland.  The  members  inter- 
rupted their  labours  at  the  end  of  June  to  notice 
the  murders  at  Serajevo,  and  send  the  most  amazing 
messages  to  "  the  aged  Emperor  of  Austria."  That 
hardened  old  sinner  (and  his  accomplice  at  Berlin) 
must  have  smiled  to  hear  himself  complimented  by 
II 


178  THE  TAINT  IN  POLITICS 

England  on  his  efforts  to  "  preserve  the  peace  of 
Europe."  The  House  continued  until  July  31st  to 
discuss  Ireland.  Outside,  men  were  now  talking 
about  the  vital  interests  of  England.  Socialists  and 
professors  and  bishops,  the  Manchester  Guardian 
and  the  Daily  News,  were  clinging  frantically  to  the 
old  creed.  We  must  be  neutral,  if  war  did  occur. 
No  sane  and  sagacious  lead  was  given  to  the  country 
by  any  politician.  Germany  had  been  talking  of 
66  the  event  of  war  "  for  ten  years,  but  we  must  not 
even  mention  possibilities.  Our  politicians  were  still 
discussing  Ireland  when  Germany  began  her  first 
secret  mobilisation.  A  few  days  later  the  thunder 
roared  from  the  firmament;  and  ministers  actually 
went  about  boasting  (since  it  proved  our  innocence) 
that  we  were  "  the  least  prepared  nation  in 
Europe!" 

Viscount  Haldane  has  stated  in  his  vindication 
(Mr  H.  Begbie's  Vindication  of  Great  Britain)  that 
we  (or  our  statesmen)  were  quite  alive  to  the  im- 
pending disaster  and  thoroughly  prepared  to  meet 
it.  The  state  of  the  ministry  on  August  1st,  1914, 
the  state  of  the  army,  the  state  of  the  country,  and 
the  state  of  the  diplomatic  service  sufficiently  answer 
the  second  part  of  this  apology.  As  to  the  first 
part,  it  is  probably  true  in  relation  to  Viscount 
Haldane,  Sir  E.  Grey,  Mr  Churchill,  and  Mr 
Asquith.  Churchill  and  his  associates  were  alive. 
Sir  E.  Grey  is  known  to  have  long  insisted  on  better 
defence ;  but  one  may  gravely  retort  that  he  would 
have  done  his  duty  more  faithfully  if  he  had  sternly 
cleansed  our  embassies,  especially  in  the  near  East, 
of  the  idlers  and  incompetents  who  filled  them  and 
let  Germany  do  almost  as  she  willed.  Viscount 
Haldane  appreciated  the  danger  at  times,  but  we 
may  leave  his  elusive  psychology  to  some  posthu- 
mous biographer.  That  he  was  watching  develop- 
ments in  the  summer  of  1914  may  be  proved  by  a 


POLITICIANS   AND   NATIONAL   CRISIS    179 

fact  which  it  was  unwise,  or  impossible,  to  disclose 
earlier  :  at  the  end  of  June,  1914,  secret  instructions 
were  sent  out  to  our  reservists  to  be  ready  at  a 
moment's  notice,  on  receipt  of  a  code-telegram. 

Mr  Asquith  may  or  may  not  have  appreciated  the 
danger.  It  seems  impossible  that  any  Premier  who 
was  in  supreme  control  of  our  Foreign  Office,  War 
Office,  and  Admiralty  during  the  few  years  before 
the  war  should  be  insensible  of  the  danger.  But  he 
made  the  disastrous  and  unpardonable  blunder  of 
consulting  party-interests  before  national  interests. 
His  cabinet  was  divided.  With  Mr  Burns,  who  very 
unduly  flattered  himself  that  he  knew  Germany,  he 
would  willingly  have  parted.  He  had  already  tried 
to  dispense  with  him,  when  he  found  that  adopting 
him  into  the  cabinet  did  not  induce  the  Labour  Party 
to  incorporate  itself  in  the  Liberal  Party,  but  Mr 
Burns  had  declined  to  see  that  that  was  the  sole 
reason  why  he  was  raised  to  cabinet  rank.  Lord 
Morley  and  Mr  Lloyd  George  were  a  graver  matter. 
To  shed  them,  on  an  armament  question,  meant  to 
disrupt  the  party.  The  opinion  on  the  matter  of 
Mr  M'Kenna,  Mr  Birrell,  Mr  Runciman,  and  others, 
would  not  have  much  weight.  A  powerful  minority, 
with  decisive  documents,  would  have  won  them. 
But  both  in  the  cabinet  and  out  of  it  were  resolute 
adherents  of  the  older  Liberal  creed,  the  short- 
sighted policy  of  purchasing  retrenchment  by 
optimism ;  and  beyond  them  were  masses  of  wealthy 
contributors  to  the  party-funds  and  workers  in  the 
movement  who  would  have  represented  all  prepara- 
tion as  provocation.  The  Liberal  Party  was  saved; 
and  a  debt  of  £6,000,000,000  was  laid  on  England. 
I  take  it  that  Mr  Asquith  knew  that  France,  whose 
politicians  were  as  culpable  as  ours,  had  not  the 
equipment  for  a  million  men,  and  that  Russia's 
great  armament  was  mostly  paper.  It  was  his 
business  to  know  it. 


180  THE  TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

Thus  we  met  the  great  onset,  with  an  army 
designed  only  to  co-operate  with  continental  forces 
which  were  miserably  below  the  theoretical  plan, 
with  no  schemes  ready  for  the  rapid  mobilisation 
of  our  further  resources,  with  a  Premier  keenly  in- 
tent on  party-interests,  with  a  cabinet  largely  con- 
sisting of  men  unfit  to  meet  a  crisis  that  had 
threatened  for  years,  with  a  Battenberg  as  First  Sea 
Lord,  with  a  crowd  of  under-secret aries  chosen  for 
their  services  to  the  party,  with  our  more  critical 
embassies  manned  by  young  men  who  could  play 
tennis  and  had  been  to  Oxford.  There  is  no  sign 
of  the  bracing  of  our  system  to  meet  the  shock  which 
Mr  Asquith  and  Viscount  Haldane  say  they  foresaw 
from  February,  1912.  Our  Government  remained  a 
nondescript  collection  of  professional  politicians, 
undistinguished  peers,  wealthy  men,  sons  of  wealthy 
men,  good  talkers,  toadies  to  politicians,  lawyers, 
and  careerists.  With  this  equipment  we  took  the 
field  against  a  national  system  in  which  every 
element  was  despotically  ruled  by  a  man  who 
despised  party  and  had  only  one  idea — to  win. 

We  need  not  survey  in  detail  the  terrible  years 
that  followed.  The  slovenliness  with  which  the 
nation's  work  was  conducted  has  made  an  almost 
ineffaceable  mark  on  our  economy.  Almost  from 
the  start  individuals  were  encouraged  to  use  the  war 
as  a  grand  means  of  enriching  themselves,  and  the 
national  economy  entered  upon  the  disastrous  per- 
version from  which  we  suffer  to-day,  and  will  suffer 
for  decades.  Our  politicians  were  dismally  incom- 
petent to  manage  the  various  branches  of  State 
entrusted  to  them.  As  early  as  February,  1915,  the 
price  of  flour  and  bread  was  rising  from  fifty  to  one 
hundred  per  cent,  above  the  pre-war  level,  and  any 
economist  could  foresee  a  general  rise,  with  a  general 
disturbance  of  Labour.  The  issue  was  raised  in  the 
House.  The  profiteering  of  shipowners  was  exposed 


POLITICIANS   AND   NATIONAL  CRISIS    181 

daily  in  the  Press.  But  Mr  Asquith  unctuously  ex- 
plained the  laws  of  supply  and  demand  to  the  igno- 
rant Labour  members  who  raised  the  question,  and 
thought  the  situation,  in  the  circumstances,  quite 
satisfactory.  Mr  Bonar  Law  agreed  with  his  right 
honourable  friend.  Mr  Runciman  thickly  implored 
them  to  think  twice  before  they  "  departed  from 
principles  which  had  been  tested  over  and  over 
again."  Mr  Austen  Chamberlain  agreed  that  it 
was  an  "  unsuitable  time  "  for  making  Socialistic 
experiments  in  the  control  of  private  enterprise. 
.  .  .  At  the  end  of  that  year  one  Liverpool  ship- 
ping firm,  a  private  firm,  divided  a  million  in  profits. 

In  every  branch  of  the  national  life  the  same  "laws 
of  supply  and  demand  "  arid  "  principles  that  had 
been  tested  over  and  over  again  "  were  given  a  free 
run.  The  funds  of  each  party  depended  on  the  suc- 
cess of  private  enterprise.  The  heads  of  the  various 
departments  at  that  time  were  incapable  of  any  other 
kind  of  enterprise.  Timber  was  wanted,  and  private 
enterprise  was  told  to  go  ahead.  The  enterprising 
Mr  Meyer,  it  was  soon  announced  in  the  House,  was 
making  profit  at  the  rate  of  £60,000  a  year !  As 
usual,  the  Government  resolutely  defended  their 
nominee  until  public  clamour  compelled  them  to 
dock  his  imperial  profits.  Horses  were  wanted. 
We  sent  abroad  for  them  men  whom  we  had  prose- 
cuted after  the  South  African  War,  and  they  levied 
commissions  in  the  old  style. 

As  to  guns  and  munitions,  the  story  is  too  sordid 
and  stupid  for  words.  The  Munitions  Committee, 
which  was  set  up  in  April,  continued  to  send  out 
contracts  with  no  price  on  them.  A  concrete  ex- 
ample, which  is  within  my  personal  knowledge,  will 
serve  better  than  a  hundred  stories.  A  certain  new 
type  of  gun  was  invented,  and  orders  for  shells  were 
sent  out  to  the  chairmen  of  the  various  districts. 
No  price  was  named,  though  the  Committee  could 


182  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

have  ascertained  easily  what  the  price  ought  to  be. 
The  manufacturers  generally  agreed  upon  a  price, 
and  obtained  it.  This  price  was  nearly  double  the 
price  at  which  they  were  eventually  willing  to  pro- 
duce the  shell.  One  honest  engineer,  who  had  the 
good  sense  to  be  a  citizen  as  well  as  a  manufacturer, 
sent  his  contract  back  to  London  for  a  price,  and 
obtained  one.  He  set  his  own  draughtsmen  to  work, 
and  found  that  the  price  named  from  London  was 
thirty  per  cent,  above  a  fair  and  reasonable  price. 
He  sent  the  contract  back  again,  and  offered  to 
deliver  the  goods  at  the  lower  price,  if  it  were  made 
uniform  for  all  engineering  firms.  The  Committee 
consented;  but  I  afterwards  found  that  the  shell 
was  being  made  in  the  north,  and  presumably  every- 
where else,  at  the  higher  price.  Perhaps  an  apologist 
would  plead  the  need  of  haste.  Certainly  there  was 
need  to  hurry,  for  these  "  goods  "  were  of  great 
importance  for  the  winter  of  1915-1916.  But  in  one 
instance,  at  least,  the  supply  was  held  up  for  four 
months  by  a  trifling  dispute  between  the  London 
Committee  and  a  Local  Committee  which  one 
vigorous  man  could  have  settled  (and  eventually  did 
settle)  in  six  hours. 

That  is  how  we  fought  Germany,  and  prepared  the 
ruin  of  our  national  economy,  in  1915.  Every  one 
who  was  able  to  follow  the  German  press  at  the 
time  knew  that  the  collapse  of  the  initial  plan  left 
the  Germans  dispirited  and  enfeebled  in  the  spring 
of  1915.  Had  our  statesmen  shown  a  proper  ap- 
preciation of  the  facts  from  1910  to  1913  the  war 
would  have  never  have  occurred.  Had  they  either 
resigned  or  sought  the  ample  assistance  of  business- 
men when  the  war  broke  out,  it  would  have  been 
finished  in  1915.  What  happened  was  that  for 
months  Germany  produced  250,000  shells  a  day, 
while  we  produced  only  2,500  high-explosive  and 
13,000  shrapnel  shells.  So  much  was  allowed  to  be 


POLITICIANS   AND   NATIONAL   CRISIS    183 

published  long  afterwards ;  but  it  was  not  added 
that  a  year  after  the  outbreak  of  war,  when  we  had 
had  ample  time  to  organise  our  resources,  Germany 
still  produced  five  times  as  many  shells  per  day  as 
England.  At  that  time  there  were  large  engineer- 
ing firms  in  the  north  who  had  not  been  asked  to 
make  a  shell. 

Mr  Asquith  now  lays  the  blame  on  Lord  Kitchener, 
who  is  dead.  On  April  20th,  1915,  it  will  be  re- 
membered, Mr  Asquith  went  to  Newcastle,  where 
a  great  "  Deliver  the  Goods  "  meeting  had  been  con- 
vened. This  was  the  early  period  of  the  German 
underground  works  and  barbed  wire  entanglements. 
High-explosive  shells  were  vital,  and  any  word  of  the 
Premier's  would  go  through  the  workshops  of 
England.  He  is  usually  reported  as  saying  that  our 
operations  were  not  at  all  crippled,  as  some  main- 
tained, by  a  scarcity  of  shells.  What  he  really  did 
say  was  so  confusing  that  the  effect  was  much  the 
same.  After  defending  himself  and  his  party  by 
rebutting  this  libel  that  the  army  was  short  of  shells, 
he  went  on  to  explain  that  "  the  urgency  was  due 
to  the  unprecedented  scale  of  the  use  of  munitions 
and  the  enlistment  of  so  many  skilled  workers." 
There  was  a  shortage  and  "  urgency,"  and  there 
was  not  a  shortage.  The  party-interest  again  spoiled 
the  national  interest. 

As  to  Lord  Kitchener,  it  seems  to  be  forgotten 
that  he  spoke  on  the  subject  in  the  House  of  Lords 
on  May  18th.  He  then  stated  that  there  had  been 
a  "  considerable  delay  "  in  the  production  of  high- 
explosive  shells;  that  the  demand  was  enormous, 
but  the  supply  was  inadequate  on  account  of  the 
lack  of  experience  of  manufacturers  in  producing 
them.  Viscount  Haldane  embroidered  this  text  at 
the  National  Liberal  Club  on  July  5th.  An  ample 
supply  had  been  ordered  in  October,  he  said,  but 
the  production  was  delayed  by  differences  between 


184  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

capital  and  labour.  A  third  theory  was  discussed  in 
the  House.  It  was  said  that  incompetent  officials 
at  the  War  Office  had  misled  Lord  Kitchener,  and 
their  heads  were  demanded;  and  refused  by  the 
Government.  All  three  theories  were  true.  A  large 
supply  had  been  ordered,  but  not  nearly  large 
enough  for  the  new  conditions  of  the  war,  and  certain 
military  authorities  ought  to  have  been  promptly 
discharged.  There  had  been  "differences  between 
capital  and  labour."  Here  is  an  experience  of  1915, 
told  me  by  a  workman  involved  in  it.  An  employer 
let  his  workers  know  that  he  would  cut  down  their 
rates,  as  the  wages  they  were  making  were  very 
high.  They  sent  a  deputation  to  tell  him,  genially, 
that  if  he  did  this,  they  would  send  a  report  on  his 
profits  to  London;  and  employer  and  employees 
continued  to  add  to  our  National  Debt.  In  the 
third  place,  the  recognised  manufacturers,  the  pro- 
minent Liberals  and  Conservatives,  were  for  a  long 
time  allowed  to  monopolise  the  manufacture  and  the 
profits. 

It  was  a  sordid  scramble  for  wealth  on  the  one 
hand  and  higher  wages  on  the  other,  impotently 
surveyed  by  the  nerveless  folk  who  presided  over 
the  national  machine.  The  only  sign  of  life  given 
by  the  patriotic  Opposition  was  a  criticism  of  the 
Budget.  The  revenue  for  the  coming  year  was  esti- 
mated at  ,£270,000,000 ;  the  expenditure  was  esti- 
mated at  £1,332,000,000.  But  the  leaders  of  the 
Opposition  fell  upon  the  estimates  with  little  less 
than  the  usual  virulence,  and  the  Irish  Party  went 
into  convulsions  at  the  prospect  of  a  higher  tax  on 
beer  and  whiskey. 

Before  the  end  of  May  the  complacency  with  which 
the  country  had  been  beguiled  was  rudely  shocked. 
The  Russian  "  steam-roller  "  rolled  backward  at 
headlong  speed.  It  was  whispered  under  breath 
that  the  Russian  infantry  were  fighting  with  sticks. 


POLITICIANS   AND   NATIONAL   CRISIS    185 

New  dissensions  broke  out  in  the  Government.  The 
Conservatives,  Mr  Bonar  Law  afterwards  said,  could 
have  brought  out  facts  far  more  serious  than  those 
which  had  led  to  the  famous  "  Cordite  vote  "  years 
before,  and  swept  the  Government  out  of  power. 
He  was  honest  enough  to  add  that  the  Conserva- 
tives could  not  very  easily  have  held  power  after 
them.  In  the  Conservative  rank  and  file  there  was 
a  sullen  resentment  that  he  had  not  done  so,  and  for 
a  year  or  two  they  regarded  the  compromise  as 
cheating  them  out  of  a  large  share  of  the  sweets  of 
office.  Luckily,  they  had  wiser  leaders,  and  we  got 
the  Coalition. 

But  even  this  change,  effected  at  a  moment  when 
the  Germans  had  recovered  their  nerve  and  were 
displaying  appalling  vigour,  was  marred  and  en- 
feebled by  our  abominable  party-considerations. 
Theoretically  a  coalition  unites  the  best  men  of  both 
parties,  the  best  men  of  the  nation,  for  harmonious 
and  energetic  national  action.  It  is  so  sound  a 
theory,  and  is  so  frequently  invoked  in  a  national 
emergency,  that  the  layman  is  puzzled  by  the 
familiar  praise  of  our  party-system.  Indeed,  the 
very  emphasis  with  which  our  politicians  tell  of  the 
personal  sacrifices  they  make  on  entering  into  a 
coalition  make  one  wonder  if  the  normal  duality  of 
our  political  world  is  not  due  to  those  personal 
interests  which  they  patriotically  disregard  at  a  time 
of  crisis.  If  the  party-system  merits  all  the  praise 
it  receives  from  those  who  are  prominent  in  it,  how 
does  it  so  constantly  fail  in  a  period  of  special  stress  ? 
And  why  is  the  abolition  of  party-distinctions  so 
very  effective  when  our  effort  must  be  most  tense, 
and  so  hazardous  or  ineffective  when  Government 
has  to  bear  only  the  comparatively  light  burden  of 
ordinary  administration  ? 

These  are  secrets  of  the  sacred  enclosure.  What 
concerns  us  for  the  moment  is  that,  at  a  time  when 


186  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

party-interests  were  supposed  to  be  sacrificed  on  the 
national  altar,  they  very  plainly  enfeebled  the  new 
combination.  When  Mr  Pease,  the  only  one  of  the 
retiring  ministerialists  to  make  a  word  of  complaint, 
contended  in  the  House  that  the  interest  of  the 
nation  and  its  soldiers  ought  alone  to  be  consulted — 
one  gathers  that  he  meant  that  at  such  a  time  party- 
interests  ought  not  to  be  consulted — Mr  Asquith 
eloquently  protested  that  no  other  thought  had 
influenced  them.  He  said  : 

"  What  is  the  personality  of  this  man  or  that  ? 
A  supreme  cause  is  at  stake.  We  have  each  and 
all  of  us — I  do  not  care  who  we  are  or  what  we 
are — to  respond  with  whatever  we  have,  with 
whatever  we  can  give,  with  whatever  we  can 
sacrifice,  to  the  dominating  and  inexorable  call." 

Again  a  most  admirable  sentiment ;  which  Mr  Asquith 
no  doubt  recalled  when  he  quitted  office  in  1916, 
and  which  he  doubtless  holds  constantly  before 
his  eyes  since  the  country  passed  its  verdict  on  him 
in  1918.  But  when  one  examines  the  personnel  of 
the  great  exchange  in  1915,  one  wonders  if  the  senti- 
ment was  judiciously  realised.  The  vigour  of  Mr 
Balfour  replaced  Mr  Churchill's  debility  at  the  Ad- 
miralty. Mr  McKenna  was  transferred  from  the 
comparatively  otiose  dignity  of  the  Home  Office 
and  took  command  of  our  weird  and  wonderful  war- 
finance.  Mr  Henderson  startled  the  world  by  under- 
taking to  run  our  Education  Department.  Mr 
Walter  Long  energetically  attacked  the  thorny  prob- 
lems of  our  Local  Government  Board.  Mr  Birrell 
continued  his  Platonic  rule  in  Ireland.  Mr  Runci- 
man  still  watched  our  shipping  and  the  other  mas- 
sive problems  of  our  Board  of  Trade.  And,  in  order 
to  make  quite  complete  the  infusion  of  new  blood 
into  our  languishing  departments,  half  a  dozen 
Liberal  under-secretaries  were  removed,  and  half  a 


POLITICIANS   AND  NATIONAL  CRISIS    187 

dozen  adherents  of  Mr  Bonar  Law  and  Mr  Balfour 
took  their  places.  Mr  J.  M.  Robertson,  an  able 
economist  and  one  of  the  most  vigorous  of  the 
under-secret  aries,  was  discharged,  with  all  his 
experience,  and  replaced  by  Mr  Pretyman.  And 
so  on. 

It  was  a  party-deal.  In  point  after  point  the 
national  interest  was  postponed  to  party-interest  or 
personal  interest.  Some  complained  that  it  deprived 
the  Government  of  an  effective  opposition.  They 
would  do  better  to  read  the  record  of  the  Conservative 
Opposition  until  July  1915.  There  was  far  more 
fruitful  opposition  after  the  establishment  of  the 
Coalition.  The  most  deadly  charge  is  the  record  of 
the  new  Government. 

There  were  advances.  Mr  Lloyd  George,  faced 
with  a  gigantic  problem  in  his  Munitions  Depart- 
ment, inaugurated  the  change  which  was  to  save  the 
nation.  He  invited  men  who  were  not  professional 
politicians  to  lend  a  hand  in  the  national  business. 
Labour,  now  at  least  partly  aware  of  the  facts,  bent 
its  back  to  the  work.  But  the  Government  and  the 
House  had  so  little  to  do  with  these  things  that  at 
the  end  of  the  month  they  dispersed  for  a  six  weeks' 
holiday !  A  few  live  men,  like  Sir  H.  Dalziel  and 
Sir  A.  Markham,  protested.  Mr  Asquith  thought 
that,  on  the  whole,  the  situation  was  satisfactory, 
and  the  House  joyously  agreed.  At  that  point  our 
Russian  hopes  were  shattered.  Our  campaign  in  the 
Dardanelles  was  a  failure.  It  was  clear  that  Bulgaria 
was  preparing  to  join  Germany.  Ireland,  India  and 
Egypt  were  being  roused  against  us.  America  was 
seething  with  anti-British  sentiment.  Labour  was 
giving  trouble  every  week. 

The  new  session  bore  no  evidence  of  new  vigour. 
A  revised  Budget  put  the  revised  estimate  of  deficit 
at  £1,285,000;  and  the  members  made  it  the  occa- 
sion of  a  spirited  debate  on  Free  Trade  and  Protec- 


188  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

tion.  Mr  J.  H.  Thomas  issued  (in  the  House)  the 
first  of  his  prophecies  of  "  revolution  " — which  he 
would  greatly  deplore,  of  course — if  compulsory 
service  were  adopted.  There  was  in  this  talk  about 
compulsion,  he  said,  a  plot  to  displace  Mr  Asquith; 
and  he  intimated  that  the  workers  of  England  would 
rise  en  masse  in  his  defence.  Dark  rumours  began 
to  circulate  about  Gallipoli.  There  were,  in  fact, 
more  than  rumours.  Lord  Northcliffe  had,  in  manu- 
script, an  authentic  account  which  even  he  dare  not 
publish.  It  was  unnecessary  for  ministers  to  ap- 
proach him  privately,  as  they  did,  and  implore  him 
to  say  less.  That  manuscript  has  not  yet  seen  the 
light. 

At  length  some  of  our  statesmen,  sobered  out  of 
all  party  considerations  by  the  darkening  prospect, 
took  patriotic  action.  Sir  E.  Carson  left  the  Cabinet 
and  publicly  laid  the  amazing  charge  that  the 
Government  had  no  "  clearly-defined,  well  thought- 
out,  and  decisive  policy  "  in  the  East.  Bulgaria  had 
entered  the  war.  The  veil  of  secrecy  over  Gallipoli 
was  unendurable :  especially  to  those  of  us  who 
knew  the  facts.  We  were  told  by  Sir  E.  Carson  that 
the  military  staff  which  advised  the  Cabinet  was 
"  a  scratch  lot."  We  were  told  by  Lord  St  Davids 
that  the  Headquarters  Staff  and  Divisional  Staffs  in 
France  were  full  of  incompetents  who  owed  their 
places  to  rank,  money  or  social  influence.  The 
need  for  a  more  gigantic  effort  than  ever  was  ap- 
parent, but  Mr  Runciman,  Mr  McKenna  and  Sir 
J.  Simon  blocked  the  way  to  compulsory  service. 
Mr  Asquith  held  on.  His  health  was  quite  good, 
he  said,  and  he  would  not  resign.  The  Globe  was 
suppressed.  The  one  set  of  papers  which  was  inde- 
pendent of  both  parties,  and  therefore  doing  splendid 
critical  work,  was  luridly  denounced  in  the  House. 

The  story  of  those  terrible  early  years  of  the  war 
must  be  shortened.  We  settled  down  to  a  "  war  of 


POLITICIANS   AND   NATIONAL   CRISIS    189 

attrition,"  and  columns  of  figures  of  "  man-re- 
sources "  took  the  place  of  the  old  diagrams  of 
steam-rollers.  Mr  Belloc,  giving  plain  hints  that 
his  figures  came  from  the  French  and  British  War 
Offices,  "  proved  to  demonstration  "  that  the  Ger- 
man resources  would  shrink  after  the  beginning  of 
1917.  Mr  Masterman,  whom  the  country  had  de- 
cisively rejected  but  the  Government  retained,  lent 
them  a  more  authoritative  air.  We  at  last  extorted 
a  measure  of  compulsory  service — "  a  monument  of 
political  ineptitude,"  Mr  Duke  called  Mr  Asquith's 
first  Bill,  which  the  House  indignantly  rejected. 
The  House  wrangled  to  protect  Ireland,  which  con- 
tinued its  plotting  under  the  fatherly  eye  of  Mr 
Birrell,  and  conscientious  objectors.  The  battle  of 
the  tank  was  fought,  in  official  circles,  and  the  edge 
of  this  most  valuable  weapon  blunted  before  it  was 
used.  We  still  had  no  Air  Ministry.  Rumania  came 
in  just  when  the  Russian  offensive  had  spent  itself, 
and  was  smashed  within  a  month.  The  debt  rose 
to  £2,500,000,000.  The  Irish  rebelled.  Unsavoury 
rumours  about  Mesopotamia  spread,  and,  when  Mr 
Asquith's  mellow  assurance  that  all  was  now  "  quite 
satisfactory  "  had  been  brushed  aside  and  an  in- 
quiry obtained,  another  ghastly  scandal  sickened 
the  weary  land.  Rumania  disappeared.  Food  ran 
short.  Teetotallers  were  allowed  to  play  their  tricks 
on  the  sullen  workers. 

The  terrible  year  ended  with  the  splendid  revolt 
of  Mr  Lloyd  George.  Was  he  ambitious  ?  Does  it 
matter  two  pins  whether  he  was  or  not?  He  had 
the  two  qualities  we  needed  :  energy  and  an  appre- 
ciation of  the  value  of  men  of  business  and  science. 
He  gave  the  food  to  Rhondda,  the  shipping  to 
Pirrie,  the  schools  to  Fisher,  and  so  on.  The  system, 
unhappily,  still  counted.  He  had  to  keep  certain 
weaklings.  He  had  to  send  Mr  Henderson,  who 
could  not  tell  a  Russian  P  from  an  English  N,  to 


190  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

deal  with  the  Russian  revolution.  But  we  no  longer 
muddled  through.  We  marched  on,  heads  erect  and 
eyes  on  the  goal.  The  party-system  was  reduced  to 
a  minimum.  We  held  up  our  heads  amongst  the 
nations.  We  got  there ;  but  as  a  legacy  of  the  first 
three  years  of  sluggishness  and  incompetence  we  have 
a  debt  of  £6,000,000,000,  a  nation  unhinged  by  the 
complete  perversion  of  its  economic  standards,  an 
industrial  order  so  demoralised  that  we  almost 
despair  of  its  return  to  sanity. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  PARTY   SYSTEM 

AT  this  point  the  reader  is  asked  to  turn  back  and 
glance  again  at  the  first  chapter.  In  1918  we  reached 
our  goal,  and,  knowing  that  a  colossal  task  still  lay 
before  us,  we  not  unwisely  entrusted  it  to  the  men 
who  had  found  the  men  to  achieve  victory.  I  have 
described  what  followed.  Never  was  there  a  more 
bitter  disillusion;  and  it  is  more  bitter  because  we 
are  conscious  that  if  we  had  to  choose  again  to-day 
we  should  make  the  same  choice.  The  old  paralysis 
pf  1914-1916  seemed  to  return  to  the  political  or- 
ganism. It  is  not  the  least  use  for  us  to  remind 
ourselves  that  mighty  things  were  done  in  what  I 
am  calling  a  period  of  paralysis.  We  know  them 
well :  a  synthesis  of  military,  naval,  industrial,  dis- 
tributive, and  financial  efforts  such  as  no  other 
nation  has  ever  equalled.  The  point  is  that  mightier 
things  could  have  been  done  with  our  resources,  and 
ought  to  have  been  done.  We  have  seen  that  the 
reasons  why  they  were  not  done  are  political. 

So  it  is  with  the  situation  since  1918.  Consider- 
ing, on  the  one  hand,  the  magnitude  of  the  necessary 
reconstruction  and,  on  the  other,  the  perverted 
views  and  temper  of  our  people,  the  task  was  truly 
gigantic.  The  effort  put  into  it  is  very  far  from 
commensurate  to  the  task.  The  outcome  so  far  is 
astonishingly  poor.  And  the  reasons  are  political. 
The  appalling  orgie  of  diplomacy  and  intrigue  at 
Paris  was  the  first  cardinal  blunder.  It  was  such 
work  as  politicians  love.  The  initial  dilatoriness 

191 


192  THE  TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

was  fatal,  and  the  proceedings  and  staffs  were  ridi- 
culously over-elaborate.  The  whole  world  suffers 
and  languishes  because  the  qualities  of  ordinary 
business  methods  were  not  studied.  Observation 
sometimes  tempts  one  to  say  that,  if  one  woman 
can  do  a  thing  in  five  minutes,  two  will  take  ten 
minutes,  and  three  fifteen  minutes  to  do  it.  So  of 
politicians.  If  one  Government  will  take  a  month 
to  do  a  thing  (which  a  commercial  board  will  do  in 
a  fortnight),  six  governments  will  take  six  months. 

For  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  there  is  no- 
thing distinctive  about  our  British  politicians.  The 
qualities  of  politicians  differ  in  degree  only  in  different 
lands.  The  political  development  in  France  during 
the  war  was  just  as  paralysing  and  pernicious  as 
here  until  Clemenceau  infused  his  vigour  into  the 
machine.  There  were  the  same  gold-laced  incom- 
petents, the  same  mediocrities  installed  for  party- 
reasons,  the  same  disastrous  favouritism,  the  same 
"  patriotic "  suppression  of  inconvenient  facts  to 
protect  individuals,  the  same  illusion  that  good 
talkers  are  good  doers,  the  same  floods  of  oratory 
in  accord  with  parliamentary  traditions,  the  same 
postponement  of  national  interests  to  those  of 
cliques.  It  was  the  same  in  Italy.  It  was  the  same 
in  Greece  and  Bulgaria,  only  more  squalid.  It  was 
the  same  in  America,  as  far  as  autocracy  permitted. 
It  is  just  the  same  beyond  the  war-theatre.  From 
Spain,  where  politics  mean  jobbery  almost  of  the 
worst  American  type,  to  Argentina  the  national 
business  is  conducted  on  lines  that  would  wreck  a 
private  business  in  six  months. 

It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  twenty  groups 
of  politicians  took  six  months  to  settle  what  every- 
body thought  had  been  settled  when  each  power 
entered  the  war,  and  to  create  a  League  of  Nations 
which  is  hardly  worth  the  parchment  its  articles 
are  written  on — which  leaves  us  just  where  the 


THE  PARTY-SYSTEM  193 

Hague  Conferences  did.  But  for  us  in  England  the 
graver  circumstance  was  that  our  work  of  domestic 
reconstruction  was  almost  suspended  until  the  Paris 
Conference  was  over.  For  this  we  are  paying 
dearly.  We  lost  at  least  £500,000,000  in  production 
and  wasted  at  least  £500,000,000  in  avoidable  ex- 
penditure through  the  delay  in  England.  That  is 
a  very  moderate  estimate.  The  work  waiting  to  be 
done  was  such  that  production  ought  to  have  been 
doubled  or  trebled. 

The  patient  social  physician,  the  wise  shareholder 
in  the  national  business,  will  try  to  select  the  real 
causes  from  the  excuses  and  mutual  charges  that 
flew  about.  War-weariness  is  pleaded.  It  is  rub- 
bish. Our  politicians  were  jaded,  perhaps,  but  the 
country  was  not.  Wherever  there  was  wise  guid- 
ance, the  energy  was  as  great  as  in  the  best  war- 
days.  There  were  three  real  causes.  First  was  the 
obvious  need  that  the  same  central  power  which  had 
converted  our  industries  into  war-industries  should 
re-convert  them  as  rapidly  as  possible  into  peace- 
industries;  but,  although  this  central  power  had 
four  million  men  under  its  control,  it  eagerly  listened 
to  the  selfish  plea  of  "  private  enterprise,"  that 
manufacturers  be  allowed  to  do  the  work  them- 
selves (and  reap  unlimited  profit).  The  second 
cause  was  that  owing  to  the  utter  perversion  of  the 
popular  economic  standard  it  was  necessary  to  re- 
strict currency  and  restore  its  original  value  as 
speedily  as  possible;  and  this  vital  work,  which 
only  the  central  power  could  effect,  was  scandal- 
ously neglected,  and  England  fell  into  hysterical 
dissipation  with  its  wads  of  paper-money.  The 
third  cause  was  that,  as  our  authorities  ought  to 
have  known  well,  there  was  a  deadly  difference  of 
opinion  between  labour  (or  the  minority  that  directs 
labour)  and  capital  as  to  the  distribution  of  the 
profit  of  re-equipping  the  world,  and  so  there  was 

N 


194  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

a  demand  for  a  perfectly  clear  and  reasonable 
scheme;  but  our  central  authority  dare  offend 
neither  side  by  proposing  something  different  from 
the  extreme  demands  of  each. 

It  would  take  a  volume  to  make  these  things 
entirely  plain  and  give  the  necessary  illustrations. 
I  can  only  ask  the  reader  to  take  any  single  strand 
of  disorder  in  our  time  and  see  if  it  does  not  lead 
to  the  discovery  of  remissness  or  cowardice  in  the 
political  authorities.  The  remedy,  one  will  say,  is 
"  increased  production,"  and  the  Government  has 
shouted  it  until  it  is  hoarse.  Yes,  but  there  will  be 
no  increased  production  if  the  manufacturing  and 
distributing  middle-class  is  to  take  the  extraordinary 
profits  out  of  it  which  those  men  have  been  making 
for  the  last  five  years.  The  present  system  of  ad- 
vancing wages  and  advancing  commodities  is  mere 
preliminary  fencing.  The  workers  demand  "  real  " 
advances.  In  1915  and  1916  Socialist  economists 
privately — it  was  never  printed — assured  the  workers 
of  South  Wales  and  the  Clyde  and  East  London 
that  the  war  would  make  an  end  of  the  middle-class 
banking  and  capitalist  system.  They  are  dis- 
appointed; but  they  are  not  going  to  return  to  the 
old  system.  It  is  a  problem  beyond  the  capacity, 
and  too  delicate  for  the  party-interests,  of  Mr  Bonar 
Law  and  Mr  Austen  Chamberlain. 

Another  says  that  the  remedy  is  the  restriction 
of  the  currency.  One  would  like  to  see  the  Govern- 
ment attempt  it.  Another  says  that  .the  great  need  is 
to  restrict  importations.  The  Government  finds  that 
a  tax  on  motor-cars  and  motor-cycles  does  not  make 
the  smallest  difference  to  the  invading  flood  of 
American  goods,  and  it  dare  do  no  more.  Another 
says  that  the  national  organisation  of  power  and 
transport  and  agriculture  will  pay  the  higher  bill 
for  wages.  The  Government  have  shown  that  they 
dare  not  do  it.  Another  says  that,  since  the  Govern- 


THE  PARTY-SYSTEM  195 

ment  do  not  believe  that  our  National  Debt  will 
be  paid  by  Germany,  they  ought  to  tell  the  country 
the  stark  economic  facts  in  the  boldest  language. 
They  dare  not  do  it.  They  are  muttering  common- 
places, temporising,  putting  off  the  day  of  reckoning 
—or  of  dissolution — as  long  as  they  can. 

Our  national  business,  in  a  word,  is  in  a  very  bad 
way  indeed,  and  the  brains  which  control  it  are  dis- 
traught and  vacillating.  Its  vital  elements  are  con- 
flicting and  chaotic,  and  it  is  loaded  with  a  debt 
of  £6,000,000,000.  If  we  do  not  find  a  national 
income  of  more  than  £800,000,000  a  year,  or  four 
times  what  we  found  in  1913,  we  shoulder  the  debt 
for  ever,  or  until  the  Bolshevist  Revolution.  Eng- 
land needs,  as  never  before,  a  straight,  clear,  bold, 
incisive  lead.  Such  a  lead  could  only  come  from 
statesmen,  and  our  statesmen  are  politicians.  They 
do  not  like  straight,  clear,  bold  pronouncements,  if 
these  make  anybody  wince  except  their  political 
opponents. 

There's  the  rub.  The  party-system  injures  us 
to-day,  as  it  has  injured  England  during  the  whole 
of  the  long  period  I  have  surveyed.  The  Coalition 
has  not  abolished  the  party-system.  It  means  that 
whereas  a  Liberal  statesman  ten  years  ago  needed 
to  study  the  interests  of  the  Liberal  party,  he  now 
has  to  study  the  interests  of  the  Conservative  party 
also.  It  does  not  mean  that  the  best  brains  of 
both  parties  are  now  available  for  the  nation's  busi- 
ness, for  half  of  the  Liberal  party  stands  out  in 
sullen  opposition,  and  at  the  moment  it  looks  as  if 
a  large  part  of  the  Conservative  party  were  about 
to  secede.  The  Labour  party  cries  plague  on  all 
their  houses.  The  ideal  plan  of  the  moment  is  to 
form  a  new  Whig  party,  with  four  other  parties 
playing  the  ancient  game  of  combinations  and 
defeats. 

After  all  our  talk  about  the  modern  purification 


196  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

of  politics,  history  is  repeating  itself  very  crudely. 
In  an  earlier  chapter  I  showed  how  the  mind  of  the 
country  was  reflected  in  the  impartial  Anual  Register 
during  the  Napoleonic  War.  People  complained 
that,  in  spite  of  coalition,  each  of  the  parties  "  main- 
tained that  the  other  grasped  at  offices  for  the  pur- 
pose of  getting  possession  of  the  public  money." 
They  spoke  contemptuously  of  "  Ins  and  Outs." 
They  noticed  how  each  embarrassed  the  other  when 
out  of  office,  and  fell  lamentably  short  of  its  promises 
when  it  was  entrusted  with  office.  In  short,  "  the 
people  at  large  had  absolutely  lost  all  confidence  in 
a  majority  of  them." 

Then  in  1S32  political  life  was  "  reformed."  The 
strain  of  another  great  war,  the  Crimean  War,  was 
laid  on  England  in  1855.  How  did  the  new 
machinery,  the  Coalition  of  that  time,  work?  The 
Blue  Books  of  the  Sevastopol  Committee,  like  our 
Blue  Books  of  the  Mesopotamia  Commission,  were 
terrible  reading.  Men  had  to  complain  of  a  War- 
Cabinet  and  House  of  Commons  that  took  a  twp 
months'  holiday  in  the  gravest  period  of  the  struggle. 
Sir  A.  H.  Layard,  Samuel  Morley,  Charles  Dickens 
and  other  non-politicians  held  scorching  meetings  in 
the  city.  The  administration  was,  they  agreed, 
filled  with  incompetent  men.  Sir  Austen  Layard 
moved  in  the  House  a  resolution  which  is  worth 
reproducing : 

"  That  this  House  views  with  deep  and  increas- 
ing concern  the  state  of  the  nation,  and  is  of 
opinion  that  the  manner  in  which  merit  and 
efficiency  have  been  sacrificed  in  the  public  ap- 
pointments to  party  and  family  influence  and  to 
a  blind  adherence  to  routine,  has  given  rise  to 
grave  misfortunes,  and  threatens  to  bring  dis- 
credit upon  the  national  character,  and  to  involve 
the  country  in  great  disaster." 


THE  PARTY-SYSTEM  197 

If  the  Conservatives  had  cared  to  unite  with  these 
independent  Liberals,  they  could  have  thrown  out 
the  Government.  But  there  are  times  appointed  in 
the  party-manual  when  it  is  unpatriotic  to  do  so : 
times,  that  is  to  say,  when  clearing  up  the  mess 
would  entail  more  loss  than  prestige.  So  the  Govern- 
ment got  Sir  E.  Bulwer  Lytton  to  move  an  amend- 
ment which  also  is  worth  reproducing : 

"  That  the  House  recommends  to  the  earliest 
attention  of  Her  Majesty's  Ministers  the  necessity 
of  a  careful  revision  of  our  various  official  estab- 
lishments, with  a  view  to  simplifying  and  facilita- 
ting the  transaction  of  public  business,  and,  by 
instituting  judicious  tests  of  merit,  as  well  as  by 
removing  obstructions  to  fair  promotion  and  legi- 
timate rewards,  to  secure  to  the  service  of  the 
State  the  largest  available  proportion  of  intelli- 
gence for  which  the  people  of  this  country  are 
distinguished." 

This  was  stately,  elegant,  soothing  to  conscience 
without  any  harsh  effectiveness.  The  House  passed 
the  amendment  by  a  large  majority.  Palmerston 
remained  in  power,  and  laughed  at  the  "  Drury 
Lane  theatricals  "  of  the  reformers.  He  made  the 
Duke  of  Cambridge  Commander-in-Chief.  And  in 
the  following  year  nearly  the  whole  of  the  critics 
were  swept  out  of  Parliament. 

We  were  just  as  wise  when  it  came  to  the  Boer 
War,  and  we  got  just  as  little  wisdom  out  of  it. 
We  reached  the  Great  European  War  with  a  system 
as  in  1804,  in  which  "  merit  and  efficiency  had  been 
sacrificed  in  the  public  appointments  to  party  and 
family  influence."  At  the  close  of  the  war  the  de- 
fects of  the  system  are  little  altered.  In  view  of 
present  tendencies  there  is  some  danger  that  the 
temporary  modifications  we  adopted  will  be  aban- 


198  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

doned,  and  the  old  system  will  return  with  all  its 
archaic  and  mischievous  features. 

Now  there  is  little  or  no  reality  to-day  in  what 
were  once  deep  and  earnest  principles  dividing 
thoughtful  men  into  two  camps.  We  no  longer  take 
different  sides  on  the  royal  prerogative,  for  there  is 
no  royal  prerogative.  We  no  longer  divide  into 
furiously  hostile  parties  over  the  Church,  for  the 
Church  of  England  includes  considerably  less  than 
half  the  nation,  and  it  is  to-day  not  without  its 
Liberals.  There  is  no  longer 'a  sharp  antagonism 
over  foreign  affairs,  for  the  Conservative  leader  who 
would  venture  to  revive  the  attitude  of  his  party 
fifty  years  ago  would  not  have  the  least  chance  of 
power.  We  are  not  even  cleanly  divided  over  Tariff 
Reform,  and  how  we  stand  in  regard  to  Ireland  we 
hardly  know  ourselves.  At  the  most  there  is  a  Con- 
servative spirit  which  tends  to  protect  from  change 
the  Throne,  the  Constitution,  property  and  the 
Church,  though  large  numbers  of  Liberals  would 
heatedly  affirm  that  there  is  no  Tory  monopoly  of 
this  spirit;  and  there  is  a  Liberal  spirit  which  anti- 
cipates "  reasonable  and  gradual  "  change,  though 
most  modern  Conservatives  dare  not  admit  that  this 
is  distinctively  Liberal.  The  present  proposals  of 
new  parties  and  new  combinations  show  how  hollow 
and  politic  the  whole  division  is.  Men  are  discussing 
the  re-arrangement  of  groups,  not  on  any  principles 
which  may  spontaneously  draw  them  together,  but 
on  the  ground  of  possible  success  at  the  polls. 

Such  plans  have  often  been  mooted  before,  and 
the  third  and  fourth  parties  have  perished  with  the 
ambitions  of  the  men  who  led  them.  The  plain 
truth  is  that  England  is  controlled  by  two  organisa- 
tions, not  two  sets  of  principles.  They  were  once 
bodies  of  men  cemented  togther  by  the  force  of 
strong  convictions.  Leaders  naturally  arose,  and 
loyalty  to  leaders  followed  as  a  matter  of  course. 


THE   PARTY-SYSTEM  199 

As  the  fire  of  conviction  dimmed,  the  heirs  of  the 
power  and  glamour  of  these  leaders  sought  other 
means  of  cohesion.  Money  was  obviously  the  first : 
intimidation  the  second.  You  followed  the  leader, 
or  his  representative,  because  you  were  rewarded 
for  doing  it,  and  punished  for  not  doing  it.  Both 
agencies  were  easily  used  until  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  Intimidation  had  then  to  be 
abandoned.  Money  remained  the  great  political 
agglutinant. 

Here  the  party-leaders  and  zealous  adherents 
violently  dissent.  Do  you,  they  ask,  quarrel  with 
a  body  of  men  because  they  choose  to  make  modest 
annual  contributions  for  the  triumph  of  principles 
which  they  regard  as  precious  to  the  nation's  wel- 
fare ?  Do  you  regard  Mr  Birrell  as  one  of  these  un- 
scrupulous party-hacks,  or  as  a  man  of  sincere  and 
informed  convictions,  if  of  unpractical  character? 
Well,  Mr  Birrell  emphatically  said  that  the  greatest 
of  questions  was  whether  England  in  the  twentieth 
century  was  to  be  Liberal  or  Conservative.  Glad- 
stone would  undoubtedly  have  supported  him.  You 
must,  the  resentful  Liberal  may  say,  be  cherishing 
the  illusion  of  the  sale  of  honours  and  the  adaptation 
of  policy  to  contributions,  which  has  been  raised  and 
refuted  in  every  decade. 

Let  us  see.  It  is  quite  true  that  the  charge  has 
been  raised  and  refuted  in  every  decade.  It  was 
familiar  a  century  ago,  and  the  then  leaders  of  the 
House  resented  it  as  indignantly  as  Mr  Bonar  Law 
does  to-day.  We  have,  however,  seen  so  many 
things  resented  in  the  House,  which  were  notoriously 
true,  that  we  investigate  further.  In  the  House, 
even  a  hundred  years  ago,  it  was  quite  customary 
to  deny  that  there  was  corruption  at  elections.  Let 
us  take  a  concrete  case.  In  1815  Sir  Thomas 
Lawrence  was  knighted.  What  could  be  more  inno- 
cent or  natural  ?  If  we  cannot  confer  the  dignity 


200  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

on  artists  of  his  rank,  what  is  the  meaning  of 
knighthood?  In  point  of  fact,  the  Dictionary  of 
National  Biography,  our  most  scrupulous  informant, 
tells  us  that  the  Prince  Regent,  in  knighting  him, 
assured  him  that  he  was  "  proud  to  confer  the 
honour  on  one  who  had  raised  British  art  in  the 
esteem  of  all  Europe."  If  we  question  the  sincerity 
of  this  honouring,  we  shall  certainly  look  askance 
at  some  of  the  grounds  alleged  for  conferring  titles 
in  our  modern  lists.  Yet  any  person  who  cares  to 
consult  Sir  Thomas  Lawrence's  Letter-Bag  (p.  97) 
will  find  this  letter  which  was  written  to  him  at  the 
time  by  Mr  Mash : 

"  If  you  will  have  honours  conferred  upon  you, 
you  must  pay  for  them.  .  .  .  Send  me  a  Draft 
before  eleven  o'clock  to-morrow  morning  for 
,£108,  2s.  8d.,  upon  the  receipt  of  which  directions 
will  be  given  for  your  knighthood  to  be  announced 
in  the  Gazette  to-morrow  evening." 

One  can  imagine  the  irony  with  which  a  politician 
of  the  day  would  have  demolished  the  idea  that  the 
honour  was  sold  to  Sir  Thomas  Lawrence,  the  great 
artist.  Two  generations,  later,  however,  this  letter 
sees  the  light.  Will  anyone  question  that  it  is  a 
surviving  fragment  of  a  system,  a  regular  business  ? 
The  tone  and  terms  of  the  letter  are  clear  enough. 

I  have  already  given  a  later  illustration  of  the 
improper  bestowal  of  honours.  It  was  not  for 
money,  but  it  fitly  illustrates  the  value  of  the 
denials  of  politicians.  In  1883  Mr  Labouchere,  who 
knew  most  things  that  were  to  be  known  about  the 
seamy  side  of  politics,  asked  for  a  rider  to  the  Cor- 
rupt Practices  Bill,  making  it  illegal  to  obtain  a  title 
by  promoting  any  person's  election.  The  insinua- 
tion was  heatedly  challenged.  At  once  Lord  Ran- 
dolph Churchill  suplied  two  notorious  instances. 
Sir  R.  Green-Price  was  made  a  baronet  in  1869  by 


THE  PARTY-SYSTEM  201 

the  Liberals  for  vacating  the  Radnorshire  Boroughs 
to  provide  a  safe  seat  for  Lord  Hartington.  Sir  H. 
Johnstone  got  a  peerage  in  1880  for  resigning  Scar- 
borough in  favour  of  Mr  Dodson.  Mr  Gladstone 
warmly  assured  the  House  that  there  had  been  no 
"  transaction  "  in  either  case.  Any  person  who  cares 
to  run  over  the  records  will  find  a  remarkable  num- 
ber of  these  instances  of  post  hoc,  sed  non  propter 
hoc. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  Mr  J.  Passmore 
Edwards  entered  Parliament.  Few  men  deserved 
honours  more  than  Edwards,  but  he  died  a  plain 
man.  He  was  a  strong  Liberal,  and  probably  con- 
tributed generously  to  the  funds.  On  two  occa- 
sions he  refused  knighthood.  I  am  aware  that  the 
second  offer  came  from  Mr  Balfour,  but  Edwards 
had  already  refused  to  be  knighted.  He  had  seen 
too  much  during  his  parliamentary  career.  Those 
who  never  heard  his  caustic  observations  may  read 
what  he  says  in  his  Few  Footprints  (p.  42) : 

"  The  House  of  Commons  is  a  rich  hunting- 
ground  for  title-hunters.  If  the  curtain  could  be 
lifted  so  that  light  might  be  thrown  on  the  motives 
and  the  means  used  by  many  to  get  titles,  both 
the  wearers  and  the  things  worn  would  command 
only  insignificant  respect." 

Unhappily,  the  man  who  would  let  light  into  this 
particular  gloom  has  a  peculiar  difficulty.  To  select 
any  name  from  the  Honours  List,  and  say  that  the 
recipient  had  done  nothing  to  deserve  the  honour, 
might  indeed  win  the  assent  of  ninety-nine  men  out 
of  a  hundred,  but  lawyers  and  judges  are  not  made 
like  other  men.  Mr  Passmore  Edwards  gives  a 
quaint  illustration  in  the  book  I  have  just  men- 
tioned. After  his  first  election  he  was  sued  for  cor- 
rupt practices.  There  was  not  a  ghost  of  substance 
in  the  charge,  but  the  case  dragged  slowly  through 


202  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

the  Court.  Even  when  Mr  Justice  Hawkins  pointedly 
remarked  that  "  this  case  is  costing  more  than  a 
guinea  a  minute,"  counsel  blandly  pursued  his 
futile  argument.  It  cost  Mr  Passmore  Edwards 
.£500  to  meet  an  utterly  baseless  charge.  On  the 
other  hand,  one  might  as  well  seek  to  prove  the 
identity  of  Junius  or  the  Man  in  the  Iron  Mask  as 
prove  any  man's  contribution  to  party-funds.  The 
subscription-book  is  the  most  sacred  document  of 
the  cult. 

Now  and  again  some  candid  biographer  fails  to 
burn  a  letter,  and  the  contributions  of  Cecil  Rhodes 
to  the  Irish  and  Liberal  funds  will  be  found  very 
significant  evidence.  Rhodes  made  his  contributions, 
not  for  a  trumpery  title,  but  to  influence  policy. 
Now,  that  policy  is  ever  modified  or  even  in  the 
faintest  degree  influenced  by  donations  to  the  party 
is  even  more  eagerly  denied  than  the  sale  of  hon- 
ours. But  the  facts  here  are  incontrovertible,  and 
they  suggest  strange  lights  on  strange  acts. 

Readers  of  Viscount  Morley's  Life  of  Gladstone 
will  remember  how  both  Mr  Gladstone  and  Parnell 
long  vacillated  on  the  question  whether,  after  the 
grant  of  Home  Rule,  the  Irish  members  were  to 
remain  at  Westminster.  Neither  of  them  wished  it, 
but  there  were  reasons  for  retention.  In  Gladstone's 
biography  the  mind  of  the  great  statesman  is  judici- 
ously guided  to  its  ultimate  attitude,  the  decision 
to  retain  the  Irish,  and  there  is  no  mention  of  Cecil 
Rhodes  or  the  Liberal  Secretary.  But  Howard 
Hensman  had  published  in  his  biography  of  Rhodes 
a  few  years  earlier  a  lengthy  and  detailed  and  con- 
vincing account  of  the  matter  that  might  have  been 
considered.* 

Rhodes  had  in  1888  given  Mr  Parnell  ,£10,000  and 
,£1000  from  another  South  African,  for  the  funds  of 
the  Irish  party,  on  condition  that  thirty-four  Irish 
*  Cecil  Rhodes  (1901),  pp.  316-357. 


THE  PARTY-SYSTEM  203 

members  remained  at  Westminster  after  a  Parlia- 
ment had  been  set  up  at  Dublin.  Parnell  had  at 
first  refused  to  consent  to  this  proposal.  He  cared 
nothing  about  Rhodes 's  scheme  of  Imperial  Federa- 
tion, or  about  anything  except  Home  Rule.  The 
offer  of  £11,000,  however,  assisted  him  to  see  that 
it  was  desirable  that  Ireland  should  be  represented 
at  Westminster.  He  arranged  that  Rhodes  should 
write  a  letter  explaining  his  wishes.  As  Rhodes 
indiscreetly,  or  bluntly,  mentioned  the  money  in 
the  letter,  Parnell  had  this  passage  deleted — which 
throws  some  light  on  the  value  of  political  docu- 
ments— accepted  the  money,  and  won  his  colleagues 
to  the  plan.  It  remained  to  overcome  the  reluct- 
ant mind  of  Gladstone,  for  Chamberlain  had  par- 
ticularly resented  this  proposal.  Two  years  later 
Parnell  wrote  to  Cecil  Rhodes — the  letter  is  repro- 
duced— to  say  that  he  had  just  visited  Hawarden, 
and  had  seen  that  the  retention  of  the  Irish 
members  was  in  the  draft  of  the  Bill. 

Mr  Schnadhorst,  the  Liberal  whip,  then  ap- 
proached Rhodes.  An  election  approached,  and  the 
treasury  was  not  full  enough.  Rhodes  promised 
,£5000  to  the  Liberal  funds  if  the  Irish  members  re- 
mained at  Westminster  and  if  (especially)  Mr  Glad- 
stone would  firmly  refuse  to  withdraw  from  Egypt. 
Schnadhorst  certainly  gave  Rhodes  the  impression 
that  he  had  consulted  Mr  Gladstone,  and  got  the 
necessary  assurances,  for  on  February  23rd,  1891, 
Rhodes  wrote  to  him  : 

"  I  enclose  you  a  cheque  for  £5000,  and  I  hope 
you  will,  with  the  extreme  caution  that  is  neces- 
sary, help  in  guiding  your  party  to  consider 
politics  other  than  England." 

It  was  the  time,  it  will  be  remembered,  when 
Gladstone  was  warily  steering  between  the  Scylla 
of  Radicalism  (which  demanded  the  evacuation  of 


204  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

Egypt)  and  the  Charybdis  of  a  new  Liberal  Im- 
perialism. Indeed,  Rhodes  added  an  angry  post- 
script in  which  he  tells  that  he  has  just  seen  Morley's 
language  about  Egypt,  and  he  says  to  Schnadhorst : 
"  If  you  think  your  party  hopeless,  keep  the  money, 
but  give  it  to  some  charity  you  approve  of."  The 
whole  transaction  was  to  be  kept  secret. 

A  few  months  later  Gladstone  attacked  the  Con- 
servative Government  over  Egypt,  and  demanded 
evacuation.  Rhodes  now  told  Mr  Schnadhorst  that, 
if  Gladstone  persisted  in  this  attitude,  the  money 
must  be  given  to  a  charity.  The  writhing  and  wrig- 
gling of  the  Whip  under  this  painful  demand  make 
amusing  reading.  The  money  was  already  virtually 
spent;  he  had  not  regarded  Egypt  as  an  essential 
condition;  and,  in  short,  Mr  Rhodes  might  rest  as- 
sured that  Mr  Gladstone  had  only  registered  a 
'  pious  opinion '  which  would  not  be  carried  out. 
It  was  not  carried  out,  as  the  world  knows.  The 
demand  for  the  evacuation  of  Egypt  disappeared 
from  the  Liberal  program,  after  adorning  it  for 
twenty  years. 

The  reader  may  make  what  he  likes  of  the  official 
denials.  Mr  Gladstone  denied  that  he  knew  of  the 
"  transaction."  The  fact  remains  that  Rhodes  paid 
£15,000  to  party  funds  (for  which  he  otherwise  did 
not  care  a  rap),  secretly,  for  the  explicit  purpose  of 
altering  the  prevailing  Liberal  policy  in  his  own 
Imperialistic  sense.  The  money  was  retained.  The 
aims  of  Mr  Rhodes  were  realised.  One  wonders  how 
many  other  contributions  to  British  party-funds 
came  from  South  Africa. 

In  fine,  I  may  put  on  record,  though  they  will  still 
be  remembered,  certain  statements  made  in  a  recent 
debate  on  honours  and  party-funds.  Mr  Belloc, 
when  he  was  in  Parliament,  brought  in  a  motion  for 
the  auditing  of  the  party-funds.  It  will  be  recol- 
lected how  the  parliamentary  strategists  easily  de- 


•'THE  PARTY-SYSTEM  205 

feated  the  proposal  by  an  amendment  which  dissi- 
pated attention  in  futile  wrangles.  Later,  there  was 
a  debate  in  the  Lords,  with  the  usual  strong  state- 
ments and  bland  denials.  On  May  28th,  1919, 
Brigadier-General  Croft  obtained  a  day  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  moved  a  resolution  which  called  upon 
the  Government  "  to  make  the  publication  of  the 
particulars  of  such  funds  compulsory  "  and  to  en- 
sure that  "  recommendations  for  the  bestowal  of 
honours  in  recognition  of  subscriptions  to  such  funds 
should  be  discontinued." 

The  name  politician  had,  he  reminded  the  House, 
become  "  one  of  opprobrium,"  and  the  leader  of 
the  House  had  himself  attributed  its  decay  to  the 
extinction  of  the  individual  member  by  the  party- 
system.  He  urged  the  House  to  "  strike  at  the  root 
of  corruption  "  :  to  have  party-funds  audited  by  a 
chartered  accountant,  a  list  of  the  chief  subscrip- 
tions published,  and  a  body  formed  for  examining 
any  names  recommended  for  honours.  Of  the 
hundred  and  fifty-five  who  had  received  here- 
ditary honours  in  the  last  two  years  a  large  pro- 
portion were  members  of  Parliament  or  journalistic 
supporters  of  the  Prune  Minister.  Perhaps  Brig- 
adier-General Croft  strains  our  credulity  a  little 
when  he  says  that  Mr  Lloyd  George  had  recently 
said,  in  answer  to  one  who  censured  his  honours 
lists :  "  I  am  no  worse  than  Walpole."  It  would 
be  strange  if  the  twentieth  century  produced  a 
statesman  equal  to  Walpole  in  the  corrupt  manage- 
ment of  the  House. 

But  later  speakers  were  more  explicit.  Mr  Bot- 
tomley  gave  direct  personal  experience.  "  A  once 
famous  leader  of  society  "  had  offered  him  an  hon- 
our, "  on  certain  formalities  on  his  part,"  for 
services  he  was  "  supposed  to  have  rendered." 
Lieutenant-Commander  Astbury,  Unionist  Member 
for  Salford,  told  how  another  member  had  been 


206  THE  TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

approached  by  "an  emissary  of  the  Government," 
who  asked  how  much  he  would  give  to  the  party- 
funds  for  a  baronetcy.     (Some  sapient  supporter  of 
the  leaders  interrupted  this  statement  with  the  re- 
mark that  there  was  "  no  record  "  of  it !)     Sir  D. 
Maclean,   Sir  R.  Cooper,  and  other  men  of  sober 
judgment     supported.      Lord     Hugh     Cecil,     who 
assuredly  ought  to  know,  admitted  the  grave  dis- 
repute of  Parliament,  though  he  did  not  believe  there 
was   "  anything  they   could   properly   call   corrup- 
tion."   But  he  significantly  supported  the  motion. 
The  granting  of  honours  must  be  reserved  for  an 
independent  committee  of  the  Privy  Council.    The 
intense  secrecy  of  the  party-funds  was  "  open  to 
much  criticism."    In  short,  almost  forgetting  that 
he  had  refused  to  admit  "  anything  they  could  pro- 
perly call  corruption,"  he  urged  the  House  to  de- 
clare that  "  the  present  system  had  come  to  an  end." 
In  the  political  world  truth  is  not  what  "  each 
man  troweth,"  but  what  his  temperament  permits 
or  compels  him  to  say.     The  truth  was  known  to 
everybody  in  the  House.    The  precise  donations  of 
certain  knights  and  baronets  on  the  last  list  passed 
from  mouth  to  mouth.     The  reasons  alleged  in  many 
cases  were  the  laughter  of  the  smoking-room.    But 
Lord  Hugh  Cecil  was  a  Cecil  as  well  as  a  Puritan, 
and  the  truth  breaks  laboriously  through  his  halting 
words.      Mr  Bonar  Law  looked  round  the  House. 
Three-fourths    of   its    members    were    away.      The 
Whips  had  detained  only  enough  faithful  souls  to 
crush  the  stalwart  few.       So  Mr  Bonar  Law  dis- 
pensed the  customary  opiates.     The  Whips  assured 
him  that  no  money  was  ever  asked  for  honours,  and 
no    man    was    ever    honoured    for    subscriptions ! 
"  Accept  the  resolution,  then,"  someone  cried.    He 
would,  he  said,  if  it  were  put  in  the  (entirely  barren) 
form  that  honours  must  not  be  given  for  donations 
to  party-funds.     Not  that  party-funds  were  an  evil. 


THE  PARTY-SYSTEM  207 

Quite  the  reverse,  he  said;  if  they  did  not  exist, 
constituencies  would  be  more  likely  to  run  after  rich 
men  who  could  pay  their  own  expenses.  As  to 
auditing,  it  would  be  useless,  as  there  would  be 
evasion.  As  to  entrusting  the  lists  to  the  Privy 
Council,  he  was  sure  no  self-respecting  Prime 
Minister  would  thus  surrender  his  responsibility. 
And,  after  retailing  this  traditional  syrup  for  half  an 
hour,  Mr  Bonar  Law  concluded  that  they  "  could 
not  cure  an  evil  of  this  kind  by  attempts  like  this;  i 
they  could  only  cure  it  by  public  opinion  "  !  / 

So  it  was  in  the  days  of  Palmerston,  or  even  in 
the  days  of  Pitt.  The  charge  of  evil  was  a  wicked 
slander;  but  the  Government  would  take  wise 
measures  to  deal  with  the  evil  which  the  House  and 
country  so  strongly  resented.  The  party-funds  must 
be  protected.  So  sensitive  are  the  party-leaders  to 
the  suggestion  of  impropriety,  that  they  will  corl- 
tinue  decade  after  decade  to  hear  the  whole  world 
about  them  say  cynical  things  rather  than  seem  to 
yield  to  slander  by  publishing  their  subscription- 
lists.  We  do  not  need  their  lists.  The  honours' 
lists  suffice.  Half  of  them  are  unmerited.  The  effort 
to  dress  up  trifling  services  as  titles  to  the  nation's 
gratitude  are  often  ludicrous.  There  is  no  longer 
a  frank  sale  of  honours  as  there  was  in  the  days  of 
Sir  Thomas  Lawrence.  That  enables  political  leaders 
to  say,  with  some  sort  of  conscience,  that  they  never 
sell  honours  or  bend  their  policy  at  the  dictation  of 
the  rich.  But  the  whole  world  knows  what  does 
happen.  Give  a  fat  cheque,  in  four  or  five  figures, 
to  the  funds  of  your  party,  and  the  Whip  will  see 
that  your  merits  are  studied  with  a  microscope,  or 
your  son  shall  get  a  foot  on  the  golden  stairs. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE   POWER   OF   THE   OLIGARCHS 

IT  is  more  than  two  thousand  years  since  political 
theorists  began  to  dispute  about  the  ideal  type  of 
governmental  machine,  yet  the  philosophers  of  the 
nineteenth  century  have  left  the  problem  where  the 
Athenians  had  left  it  long  ago.  The  issue  lies  be- 
tween democracy  and  aristocracy.  No  reputable 
and  impartial  thinker  praises  either  autocracy  or 
oligarchy.  It  is  ever  a  question  of  weighing  the 
cultural  demerits  of  Demos  against  the  moral  de- 
merits of  Ploutos :  the  imperfectly-grasped  and 
erratic  ideas  of  self-interest  of  the  Many,  and  the 
very  clear  ideas  of  self-interest  of  the  Few.  An 
historical  indictment  of  both  forms  of  polity  is  quite 
easy.  No  democracy  has  had  the  long  average  life 
of  monarchies ;  but  no  aristocracy  ever  used  its  gifts 
exclusively  on  behalf  of  the  entire  body  or  avoided 
corruption.  The  modern  world,  it  is  true,  pays  little 
attention  to  the  political  theorist ;  yet  it  is  not  with- 
out interest  to  note  that  none  have  a  good  word  for 
oligarchy. 

We  in  England,  however,  are  ruled,  not  by  an 
aristocracy  or  plutocracy,  but  an  oligarchy.  We 
soothe  our  vanity  with  the  phrase  that  we  are  a  self- 
governing  nation;  as  if  that  were  not  a  flagrant 
contradiction  in  terms,  since  government  hi  its 
essence  implies  coercive  power  over  us.  In  hours  of 
ceremony  we  gracefully  grant  tEat  we  are  a  mon- 
archy; though  it  would  be  interesting  to  see  what 
would  happen  to-day  if  our  King  refused  his  signa- 

208 


THE   POWER   OF  THE   OLIGARCHS    209 

ture  to  one  of  our  measures,  or  attempted  to  enforce 
in  Parliament  a  measure  which  the  majority  of  us 
disliked.  When  we  are  in  a  serious  mood,  we  imagine 
that  we  are  no  longer  "  governed  " ;  that  the  coun- 
try is  administered,  and  new  laws  are  framed,  by 
men  elected  for  those  purposes  by  us  and  revocable 
at  our  will. 

There  is  no  need  to  run  again  over  the  political 
calendar  in  order  to  disprove  this.  There  are,  or 
have  been,  certain  great  issues  which  the  country 
forced  on  its  statesmen.  Such  were  Catholic 
Emancipation,  the  Reform  Bill  of  1832,  and  the 
abolition  of  the  Corn  Laws.  Lord  Morley  would 
add  the  Reform  Bill  of  1867,  and  he  is  disposed  to 
picture  a  reluctant  Government  driven  into  action 
periodically  by  us,  the  people.  There  are  un- 
doubtedly times  when  this  occurs,  though  one  would 
rather  say  that  the  Reform  Bill  of  1867,  which 
neither  Palmerston  nor  Disraeli  really  wanted,  was 
due  to  an  equal  mixture  of  political  chicanery  and 
popular  pressure.  The  country  forced  upon  the 
House  the  creation  of  a  more  or  less  national  and 
rational  scheme  of  education,  and  it  forced  the  con- 
flict with  the  Lords.  Even  here,  however,  it  is  in- 
structive to  study  the  behaviour  of  the  King's  (not 
our)  Ministers. 

In  1901,  under  the  Conservatives,  an  auditor  dis- 
allowed the  expenditure  of  the  London  County 
Council  for  advanced  instruction  in  science  and  art 
in  secondary  and  continuation  schools.  It  would  be 
interesting  to  have  a  quite  full  and  detailed  account 
of  this  procedure,  but  probably  we  shall  never  have 
it.  At  all  events,  it  cut  a  most  important  element 
out  of  our  school  system,  and,  though  there  were  no 
doubt  many  in  high  places  who  would  like  to  cut  out 
permanently  this  stimulating  diet  of  the  children  of 
the  workers,  the  Government  dare  not  leave  matters 
where  the  Cockerton  judgment  put  them, 
o 


210  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

Sir  John  Gorst  introduced  a  measure.  County  or 
Borough  Councils  were  to  control  secular  education 
in  secondary  schools  through  committees;  and  the 
Councillors  might  co-opt  anybody  whom  they 
pleased  to  regard  as  an  "  expert  "  to  these  com- 
mittees. The  drift  of  the  measure  was  at  once  plain. 
The  representatives  of  squire  and  parson  rubbed 
their  hands.  The  Liberals  objected,  but  with 
dignity.  The  Radicals  and  the  representatives  of 
the  teachers  roundly  denounced  the  Bill,  and  so 
plainly  depicted  its  sectarian  motives  that  Mr  Bal- 
four  was  obliged  to  withdraw  it  because  of  the  pro- 
spect of  "  a  long  and  bitter  resistance."  The 
oligarchs  were  defeated,  but  only  partially  They 
introduced  a  modified  measure,  which  was  almost 
equally  repugnant  to  the  mass  of  the  people,  and 
used  their  technical  power  to  put  it  through.  It 
was  quite  out  of  accord  with  their  election-promises, 
but  they  knew  their  House.  Honourable  members 
were  so  little  interested  in  this  Bill,  in  spite  of  its 
serious  possibilities,  that  only  342  figured  in  the  last 
division.  Mr  Joseph  Chamberlain,  who  had  once 
written  (to  G.  J.  Holyoake)  that  he  wished  "  to 
wrest  education  out  of  the  hands  of  priests  of  all 
shades,"  voted  for  it.  The  oligarchy,  in  other  words, 
had  a  good  deal  of  its  way,  in  spite  of  the  very  plain 
mood  of  the  country. 

The  conflict  with  the  Lords  is  an  even  worse  in- 
stance of  the  thwarting  of  the  will  of  the  people  by 
the  oligarchy  of  leading  politicians  of  both  sides  as 
long  as  they  could.  It  would,  perhaps,  not  be  in- 
accurate to  say  that  the  country  has  been  eager  ever 
since  1830  to  break  the  medieval  power  of  the  Lords. 
The  legislative  record  of  the  Lords  in  the  nineteenth 
century  is  one  long  procedure  of  slaying  or  mutilat- 
ing Bills  which  the  representatives  of  the  people 
passed ;  and  the  more  fiercely  the  people  demanded 
these  measures,  or  the  more  progressive  they  were, 


THE  POWER   OF  THE  OLIGARCHS    211 

the  more  surely  the  Lords  destroyed  or  eviscerated 
them.  Yet  it  took  the  leaders  of  the  Commons 
seventy  years  to  nerve  themselves  for  the  obviously 
popular  task  of  making  us,  in  truth,  a  "  self- 
governing  "  people. 

We  left  Mr  Gladstone  in  his  later  years  muttering 
that  something  would  have  to  be  done  with  the 
Lords,  but  no  one  had  any  illusion  about  the  pros- 
pect of  his  doing  anything,  and  his  letters  and  diaries 
make  it  plain  that,  even  if  he  had  been  younger, 
the  people  would  have  found  it  impossible  to  impose 
upon  him  their  will  in  connection  with  the  Lords. 
Chamberlain's  letters  in  the  later  seventies  express 
the  deep  annoyance  of  the  Radicals  at  Gladstone's 
personal  suppression  or  restriction  of  progressive 
legislation.  It  is  unnecessary  to  add  that  when 
Chamberlain  himself  entered  into  full  power  as  an 
oligarch,  he  had  no  more  mind  than  Gladstone  or 
Salisbury  to  carry  out  the  will  of  the  people  in  this 
respect. 

In  1909  a  more  dangerous  Radical  than  Chamber- 
lain forced  his  way  into  the  charmed  circle,  and  it 
was  fortunate  that  his  own  will  coincided  entirely 
with  the  will  of  the  people.  Mr  Lloyd  George's 
"  Socialistic  "  Budget  of  1909 — which  Socialists  re- 
garded as  a  bourgeois  trick — provoked  one  of  the 
historic  fights  of  the  House  of  Commons.  There 
was  no  ambiguity  whatever  about  the  mind  of  the 
nation,  but  the  Opposition  frankly  represented  the 
minority  of  property-holders,  and  they  fought  with 
every  weapon  in  the  parliamentary  arsenal.  New 
phrases  were  added  to  the  political  vocabulary,  and 
Mr  Balfour's  ingenious  "  frigid  and  calculated  in- 
exactitude "  brought  less  elegant  rejoinders.  It  was 
November  before  the  spring  Finance  Bill  passed  the 
Commons,  where  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
members  supported  it  from  the  start.  The  Lords 
then  rejected  it  by  350  votes  to  75.  This  Bill,  they 


212  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

said,  in  the  hope  of  forcing  a  modification  of  some 
of  the  new  burdens  on  property,  must  be  specially 
submitted  to  the  people  before  they  could  find  it  in 
their  consciences  to  let  it  pass. 

There  is  no  doubt  that,  as  Mr  Asquith  said  at  the 
time  in  the  Commons,  this  was  a  piece  of  "  the 
hollowest  political  cant."  But  within  a  few  months 
there  were  many  who  wondered  if  Mr  Asquith's  own 
words  were  entirely  free  from  that  taint.  At  the 
moment  he  struck  an  heroic  attitude.  He  welcomed 
the  challenge,  and  would  ask  the  country  to  decide 
whether  the  Lords  or  the  Liberal  Government  were 
in  power.  The  House,  he  said,  in  that  grand 
language  which  once  made  his  reputation  as  a  states- 
man, "  would  be  unworthy  of  its  past  and  of  those 
traditions  of  which  it  is  the  custodian  and  trustee  " 
if  it  did  not  at  once  hurl  back  this  "  usurpation  " 
of  its  rights.  Radicals,  weakened  in  their  allegiance 
by  the  Government's  conduct  in  Egypt,  rallied  to 
the  cry  and  closed  the  ranks.  Mr  Lloyd  George 
declared  that  he  "  would  not  remain  a  member  of  a 
Liberal  cabinet  for  an  hour  unless  full  powers  were 
accorded  it  enabling  it  to  pass  into  law  a  measure 
securing  that  the  Commons  could  carry  Bills  in  a 
single  Parliament  either  with  or  without  the  sanction 
of  the  House  of  Lords."  Even  Sir  Edward  Grey,  far 
from  Radical,  a  conscientious  Whig,  called  upon  the 
nation  to  assert  for  ever  the  rights  of  the  Commons 
to  be  uncontrolled  as  to  finance.  In  fine,  on  the  eve 
of  the  election,  Mr  Asquith  vowed  at  a  monster- 
meeting  in  the  Albert  Hall  that  "  Liberal  ministers 
would  not  again  assume  or  hold  office  unless  they 
could  secure  the  safeguards  shown  to  be  necessary 
for  the  legislative  utility  and  honour  of  the  party  of 
progress."  On  that  understanding,  which  seemed 
clear,  Liberals  and  Radicals  scattered  over  the 
country  for  the  great  fight. 

As  usual,  the  issue  was  complicated,  the  mind  of 


THE  POWER   OF  THE   OLIGARCHS    218 

the  people  dazed  and  inebriated,  in  every  possible 
way.  Conservatives  generally  made  it  an  appeal  on 
Tariff  Reform.  Every  refined  trick  left  possible  by 
the  Corrupt  Practices  Act  was  practised.  Money 
was  poured  out  abundantly — in  defence  of  money. 
Peers  whom  no  intimate  friend  had  suspected  of  the 
energy  of  making  speeches  stumped  the  country. 
The  Church — only  four  bishops  had  voted  for  the 
Bill — was  enlisted  in  the  crusade.  The  women, 
angry  at  Mr  Asquith's  personal  thwarting  of  their 
suffrage-measure,  withdrew  every  vote  they  could 
from  the  Government.  In  spite  of  it  all,  Mr  Asquith 
was  returned  with  a  working  majority  of  one  hun- 
dred and  ten  over  the  Unionists. 

The  Liberals  were  274 :  the  Unionists  272.  They 
looked  at  each  other  in  embarrassment  and  annoy- 
ance. The  forty-one  Labour  members  and  seventy- 
one  Nationalists  wanted  an  immediate  attack  on  the 
Lords'  Veto.  It  held  up  Home  Rule,  and  it  blocked 
the  way  to  progressive  legislation.  But  Mr  Asquith 
was  discovered  to  be  unhappy.  There  was  talk  of  a 
Coalition,  a  meeting  in  a  wayside  inn,  anything  but 
a  straight  fight.  No  compromise  was  possible,  how- 
ever, and  Mr  Asquith  kissed  hands.  He  asked  no 
guarantees  or  assurances  whatever,  and  he  and  his 
colleagues  placidly  faced  the  House  as  if  the  Albert 
Hall  meeting  had  never  taken  place.'"  Not  only 
Radicals,  but  Mr  Balfour  himself,  banteringly  asked 
if  Mr  Asquith  had  got  his  "  safeguards."  In  a  tone 
of  naive  surprise  the  Premier  protested  that  he  must 
have  been  misunderstood.  How  could  an  experi- 
enced statesman  be  supposed  to  ask  "  guarantees  for 
a  contingent  exercise  of  the  Royal  prerogative." 
The  less  experienced  statesmen  at  the  back  of  him 
muttered  angrily  that  this  was  trickery  and  verbiage. 
Liberals  like  Sir  H.  Dalziel  and  Sir  H.  Spicer  bluntly 
said  that  they  had  been  "  misled."  Nationalists  and 
Labour  members  put  it  less  politely.  It  is  known 


214  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

that  the  Unionists  privately  made  an  offer  to  help 
the  Government  to  carry  on,  in  defiance  of  the  Irish 
and  the  Labour  men.  What  precisely  took  place,  or 
would  have  taken  place,  we  do  not  know,  but  pre- 
sumably Mr  Asquith  learned  that  the  Lords  would 
now  pass  the  Budget.  Instead  of  at  once  attacking 
the  Veto,  as  the  country  had  expected,  he  put  the 
Budget  through  once  more,  and  the  Lords  meekly 
submitted  to  "  the  will  of  the  people."  The  provi- 
dential death  of  King  Edward  saved  him  for  a  time 
from  further  measures,  and  it  was  not  until  1911 
that  he  proceeded  against  the  Lords. 

It  is  needless  to  dwell  on  Chinese  Labour  and  other 
matters  on  which  the  will  of  the  country  was  plainly 
expressed.  It  would  be  superfluous  to  dwell  on  the 
election-promises  of  1918  and  the  dismal  failure,  or 
positive  refusal,  to  fulfil  them.  We  are  in  the  hands 
of  an  oligarchy  that  trims  our  ends,  rough  hew  them 
how  we  will.  It  is  rare  for  the  will  of  the  people  to 
prevail,  and  the  victory  is  never  complete. 

Many  would  suggest  that  the  first  condition  of  the 
survival  of  this  oligarchy,  which  the  Civil  War  of 
the  seventeenth  century  substituted  for  a  despotic 
monarchy,  is  the  lingering  of  the  medieval  practice 
of  the  King  choosing  the  First  Minister.  Fortu- 
nately, this  apparently  autocratic  act  is  limited  by 
the  political  possibilities.  The  King  must  choose  a 
man  who  can  rally  a  majority  of  the  House,  and 
therefore  presumably  represents  the  will  of  the 
majority  of  the  people.  Buckingham  Palace  there- 
fore finds  itself  painfully  compelled  at  times  to  sum- 
mon men  whose  personalities  or  sentiments  are  not 
congenial.  Queen  Victoria's  feeling  toward  Glad- 
stone, the  first  great  Commoner,  is  well  known,  in 
spite  of  his  religious  zeal,  his  Puritanism,  and  his 
real  Conservatism.  At  his  retirement  she  pointedly 
ignored  his  suggestion  of  a  successor,  and  chose  a 
peer  who  was  even  less  Liberal  than  he.  But  the 


THE  POWER   OF  THE   OLIGARCHS    215 

practical  situation  is  inexorable,  as  she  discovered. 
This  remnant  of  the  royal  prerogative  is  almost  use- 
less, as  the  chosen  Premier  has  to  be  approved  by  the 
support  of  the  House. 

The  real  mischief  is  in  the  next  step.  If  some 
industrious  historian  will  one  day  write,  as  far  as  it 
is  possible  to  do  so,  the  chronicle  of  the  formation  of 
ministries,  it  will  prove  as  amusing  as  Petruccelli 
della  Gattina's  history  of  the  Papal  Conclaves. 
Forty-eight  hours  of  weird  intrigue  and  calculation 
folW  the  choice  of  the  First  Minister.  The  last 
consideration  is  the  competency  of  the  particular 
candidate  to  control  a  great  department  of  State. 
Westminster  gasped  with  astonishment  when  Mr 
Lloyd  George  had  the  audacity  to  look  beyond  the 
crowd  of  office-seekers,  who  lingered  within  tele- 
phone-call, and  choose  "non-politicians"  of  a  cabinet 
rank.  It  was  war-time,  certainly,  but  even  the  vital 
need  of  the  nation  must  have  some  respect  for  politi- 
cal traditions.  The  law  is  plain.  There  are  some 
twenty  or  thirty  men  on  each  side  who  have  a  right 
to  be  included  in  the  ministry,  and  the  task  of  the 
First  Minister  is  to  do  as  little  harm  as  possible 
within  the  Party  by  his  necessary  omissions — for  the 
cake  is  never  large  enough,  in  Disraeli's  phrase — and 
find,  in  that  narrow  sphere,  the  nearest  approach 
he  can  to  square  men  for  square  holes. 

At  one  time  it  was  necessary,  whatever  the 
standard  of  ability  of  the  peerage  at  the  time,  to 
select  first  a  large  number  of  peers  as  the  substantial 
part  of  the  cabinet.  The  Whig  had  to  dissipate  the 
slightest  suspicion  of  revolutionary  intentions.  The 
mood  has  outlived  Whiggery.  There  were  four  peers 
in  the  cabinet  which  set  out  to  fight  Germany  in 
1914,  and  it  is  safe  to  say  that  not  one  person  in 
100,000  could  recall  the  names  of  three  of  them 
to-day. 

Next  to  these  come  hereditary  legislators,  or  scions 


216  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

of  political  families.  Since  Mr  Herbert  Gladstone 
decided,  in  spite  of  his  father's  consciousness  of  the 
wickedness  of  the  political  world,  to  choose  that 
career,  the  cabinet  was  open  to  him.  Qualification 
was  a  secondary  matter.  Any  member  of  the  Cecil 
family,  one  supposes,  can  march  straight  from  the 
cradle  to  the  cabinet.  The  Marquis  of  Crewe  had  a 
right  by  birth  and  marriage.  Mr  Har court  and  Mr 
Churchill  had  only  to  produce  their  pedigrees.  The 
Montagus,  Mr  Austin  Chamberlain,  Mr  Hobhouse, 
Sir  John  Pease,  Mr  Masterman,  Mr  Tennant,  and 
others  fall  in  the  same  class.  They  were  born  to  the 
purple,  or  they  married  it.  It  would  be  hazardous 
to  quarrel  with  their  families  or  connections.  They 
are  normal  and  legitimate  aspirants  to  membership 
of  the  oligarchy. 

The  other  groups  are  fairly  well  defined.  There 
are  the  sons  of  rich  members  of  one  or  other  party. 
For  a  few  years  they  can  afford  to  work  as  unpaid 
secretaries,  or  apprentices,  and  learn  the  trade. 
Presently  they  appear  in  the  ministry,  or  on  the 
fringe  of  it,  and  the  Press  has  laboriously  to  discover 
who  they  are.  "  A  slight  ballast  of  mediocrity 
steadies  the  ship  and  makes  for  unity,"  says  a  dis- 
tinguished politician.  One  would  not  care  to  sug- 
gest that  they  are  useful  for  outvoting  members  of 
the  ministry  with  pronounced  personality.  It  is  pro- 
bably the  kind  of  sophistication  with  which  men  like 
Mr  Gladstone  reconcile  themselves  to  entrusting 
national  tasks  of  great  importance  to  mediocrities,  for 
reasons  which  need  not  be  looked  in  the  face.  What 
becomes  of  the  Post  Office  or  the  Home  Office  or  the 
Board  of  Trade  under  their  scrupulous  attention  is 
another  matter.  The  journalistic  view,  as  Mr  Stead 
genially  put  it  in  his  examination  of  the  1906  cabinet 
of  Mr  Campbell-Bannerman,  is  that  "  a  Premier  is 
entitled  to  perpetrate  one  job "  in  making  his 
cabinet.  Mr  Campbell-Bannerman  had  made  his 


THE  POWER   OF  THE   OLIGARCHS    217 

private  secretary,  who  had  married  Lord  Aberdeen's 
daughter,  Secretary  for  Scotland.  Happy  the  nation 
that  gets  only  one  job  perpetrated  in  the  choice  of 
its  administrators.  "  In  all  cabinets,"  says  a  par- 
liamentary writer,  "  there  are  members  of  whom  it 
may  be  said,  '  one  wonders  how  the  devil  they  got 
there.'  " 

The  private  secretaryship  is  a  widely  recognised 
approach  for  talent  which  has  no  political  pedigree 
and  no  aristocratic  marriage-connections.  Young 
lawyers,  to  whose  aspirations  the  hours  of  the  House 
are  nicely  and  deliberately  adjusted,  are  familiar 
with  the  route.  In  the  1906  cabinet  eight  out  of 
nineteen  ministers  were  lawyers.  In  the  1914 
cabinet  nine  were  lawyers,  and  the  extra-cabinet 
workers  were  largely  lawyers.  The  ideal  politician 
is,  it  seems,  a  man  who  has  been  through  Oxford 
and  the  courts.  He  is  accomplished  in  the  art  of 
preventing  anything  from  being  done,  the  confusion 
of  issues,  and  the  prolongation  of  debate.  None  but 
a  lawyer  could  think  out  Mr  Asquith's  magnificent 
phrases  and  subtleties  of  speech.  But  this  approach 
is  not  reserved  for  lawyers.  Any  young  man  who 
will  for  some  years  zealously  and  loyally  serve  the 
Party,  in  and  out  of  the  House,  for  a  number  of  years 
may  cherish  hope  to-day.  Let  him  write  a  book  on 
the  glorious  deeds  of  Gladstonian  Liberalism  (or 
Disraelian  Conservatism,  as  the  case  may  be),  devote 
his  leisure  to  the  cause,  show  himself  expert  at  block- 
ing motions  or  nettling  questions  (if  on  the  Opposi- 
tion), and  he  may  presently  find  himself  Under- 
secretary for  some  branch  of  the  national  economy 
about  which  he  knows  as  much  as  he  does  about  the 
finances  of  Liberia. 

Lastly,  there  is  the  unpleasant  need  of  sharing  the 
spoils  with  representatives  of  minorities  whose  sup- 
port is  essential,  or  whose  opposition  must  be  dis- 
armed. It  grows  more  painful  every  decade. 


218  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

Gladstone,  needing  the  Radicals,  was  forced  to  make 
an  offer  to  Sir  C.  Dilke — a  gentleman,  it  is  true,  but 
a  pronounced  Republican  and  suspected  of  infidelity. 
Dilke  compelled  Gladstone  to  accept  also  Chamber- 
lain, then  a  strong  anti-clerical  and  Republican. 
Downing  Street  was  changing.  Lord  Salisbury  was 
compelled  to  include  Lord  Randolph  Churchill, 
whom  he  regarded  as  a  traitor,  and  ultimately  Mr 
Chamberlain.  A  deeper  depth  was  opened  when  a 
Labour  Party  appeared.  Mr  Burns  had  to  be 
taken  into  the  cabinet.  Extreme  Labour  men  at 
once  disowned  Mr  Burns,  and  Mr  Asquith  tried  to 
induce  Mr  Hyndman  to  join  !  A  few  years  later  Mr 
Henderson  was  put  in  control  of  the  third  largest 
educational  system  in  the  world,  and  was — he  says 
— sent  to  Petrograd  (where  people  translated  to  him 
what  they  thought  fit)  with  discretionary  power 
to  turn  out  a  titled  ambassador  and  take  his 
place. 

These,  however,  are  the  minority  of  the  cabinet, 
and  can  be  outvoted  at  any  time.  The  oligarchs — 
the  representatives  of  the  great  political  families  and 
the  men  of  exceptional  ability  who  have  forced  their 
way  in  and  will  found  new  families — settle  down  to 
the  consolidation  of  their  power.  The  machinery 
they  find  at  hand,  elaborated  by  a  long  line  of 
oligarchs,  is  almost  perfect.  The  Opposition  is  the 
Opposition,  and  has  its  recognised  laws,  the  first  of 
which  is  not  to  remain  in  opposition  one  day  longer 
than  it  can  help.  It  must  be  vigilant  for  snap-votes 
and  intrigues  with  disaffected  minorities.  It  must 
use  no  language  in  less  than  the  superlative  degree 
whenever  the  Government  does  something  that  the 
country  may  presumably  resent,  or  fails  to  do  some- 
thing which  the  country  empowered  and  instructed 
it  to  do.  All  things  are  lawful  to  it,  and  most  things 
are  expedient.  It  can  throw  out  a  Government  over 
a  Franchise  Bill,  and  then  pass  an  even  more  demo- 


THE  POWER  OF  THE  OLIGARCHS    219 

cratic  measure  itself.  It  can  cast  down  a  ministry 
for  the  horrors  of  Chinese  labour,  and  then  contem- 
plate them  with  philosophic  resignation.  It  can  ask 
whether  the  Government  has  the  guarantees  it  pro- 
mised to  exact,  and  then  give  it  a  gentlemanly 
assurance  that  they  will  not  be  necessary.  This  is 
all  in  the  game. 

But  the  rival  group,  the  oligarchs  of  the  quin- 
quennium, are  quite  familiar  with  these  manoeuvres, 
and,  if  they  start  their  reign  with  a  majority  of  at 
least  sixty  or  seventy,  are  not  disturbed.  Their 
main  task  is  to  hold  their  majority.  The  greater 
part  of  their  supporters  are  safe.  The  indignation 
which  was  vented  when  Mr  Lloyd  George  and  Mr 
Bonar  Law  issued  "  coupons  "  before  the  last  elec- 
tion was  part  of  the  theatrical  unreality  that  seems 
inseparable  from  politics.  In  effect  they  are  always 
issued,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  chapter.  A  par- 
liamentary candidate  faces  the  electorate  almost  in- 
variably as  a  "  supporter  "  of  one  or  other  group 
of  oligarchs.  They  control  the  machine  and  the 
party-funds,  and  it  is  of  little  use  for  any  man  to 
seek  election  in  defiance  of  the  machine.  Probably 
he  is  to  some  extent  financially  dependent  on  it.  At 
least  he  must  rely  on  its  organisation,  for  the  so- 
called  Independent  is  almost  invariably  crushed  be- 
tween the  stones  of  the  Liberal-Conservative  mill. 
Even  most  of  the  few  members  who  are  financially 
independent  soon  find  the  limits  of  their  power.  In 
the  hands  of  the  leaders  is  the  dread  weapon  of  dis- 
solution, with  the  prospect  of  finding  another  thou- 
sand or  two  thousand  pounds  for  an  election.  During 
the  course  of  the  year  1919  we  have  realised  the 
force  of  this.  We  find  its  influence  every  few  years 
in  the  political  chronicle  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
We  have  a  flagrant  example  in  the  earlier  part  of 
the  war,  when  many  members  clung  to  Mr  Asquith, 
because  their  salaries  were  secure  against  reduction 


220  THE  TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

as  long  as  he  remained  Premier,  but  were  plainly 
threatened  in  the  event  of  a  change. 

The  leaders  have  then  to  deal  with  "  followers  " 
who  show  a  tendency  to  mutiny.  They  are  quite 
aware  that  this  is  hi  some  cases  a  recognised  form 
of  ambition,  and  the  remedy  is  prescribed  by  long 

experience.  "  Tell we'll  do  nothing  for  him 

until  he  drops  that  grievance  of  his,"  a  cabinet 
minister  said  to  a  friend  of  the  member  whose  name 
I  suppress.  No  doubt  for  entirely  different  reasons 
he  dropped  it;  and  he  appeared  in  an  enviable 
position  soon  afterwards.  The  record  of  the  last 
twenty  years  has  many  such  coincidences.  The 
sugar-plums  at  the  disposal  of  the  cabinet  are 
numerous,  quite  apart  from  ministerial  positions. 
There  are  political  pensions  for  the  deserving  and  the 
docile.  Some  one  once  asked  Mr  Gladstone  for  a 
political  pension  for  either  a  Conservative  or  a  Radi- 
cal ;  Lord  Morley  does  not  say  which,  but  I  suspect 
a  certain  well-known  Radical.  "  You  are  probably 
aware,"  the  great  Puritan  replied,  refusing,  "  that 
during  the  fifty  years  which  have  passed  since  the 
system  of  political  civil  pensions  was  essentially  re- 
modelled, no  political  pension  has  been  granted  by 
any  minister  except  to  one  of  those  with  whom  he 
stood  on  terms  of  general  confidence  and  co-opera- 
tion." Lord  Morley  adds  that  in  his  later  years  Mr 
Gladstone  wanted  to  abolish  these  "  remodelled  " 
aids  to  oligarchy,  but  was  dissuaded  by  his  younger 
colleagues  on  the  genial  ground  that,  in  view  of  the 
approaching  term  of  his  political  career,  such  an  act 
would  be  an  act  of  dictation  to  the  consciences  of 
others.  They  still  ooze  from  the  Exchequer,  and  the 
list  of  recipients  is  interesting. 

There  are  lectureships  in  connection  with  the 
party-organisations  that  are  ever  willing  to  listen  to 
the  recommendation  of  a  minister.  Journalistic 
openings  are  possible  in  a  certain  section  of  the  press. 


THE   POWER   OF  THE   OLIGARCHS    221 

There  are  knighthoods  and  privy  councillorships  and 
other  decorations  which  at  once  put  a  man  in  a  posi- 
tion to  double  his  fees  for  lectures  or  articles.  There 
are  commissions  and  committees  and  other  prizes. 
Mr  Passmore  Edwards  told  me  that  half  the  Irish 
members,  when  the  Liberal  Party  was  sustained  by 
them,  lived  on  the  work  of  the  House  long  before 
members  began  to  receive  salaries. 

For  the  thoroughly  refractory,  who  are  generally 
men  of  means  as  well  as  political  morals,  with  safe 
seats,  the  oligarchy  has  other  measures.  Their  re- 
cord in  the  House,  especially  since  the  caucus  was 
adopted,  is  not  encouraging  to  any.  The  awful  ex- 
ample of  Co  wen  still  haunts  the  smoking-room.  Mr 
Gibson  Bowles  later  attempted  the  free  lance,  and  his 
experience  did  not  make  the  caraer  more  attractive. 
In  1901  he  accused  the  Government  of  putting  pres- 
sure on  an  independent  committee  in  connection  with 
reconstruction-work  at  Gibraltar.  It  issued  its  re- 
port, he  said,  and  then,  under  pressure  from  the 
oligarchs,  withdrew  it  and  issued  a  different  report. 
His  experience  may  be  gathered  from  the  letter 
which  he  wrote  to  the  Times  (October  18th) : 

"  The  right  of  free  speech,  or  of  any  speech  at 
all,  on  any  subject  at  all,  is  so  fenced  about  by 
rules,  mostly  new  and  made  by  the  clerks  at  the 
table  to  shut  up  loopholes,  that  it  can  only  be 
exercised  at  the  will  of  the  Minister.  Each  session 
witnesses  new  additions  to  the  closely-woven  net 
wherein  the  feet  of  the  private  member  are  en- 
tangled should  he  dare  to  raise  any  matter  what- 
ever in  any  form  whatever." 

The  country  has  since  shown  some  tendency  to 
return  a  few  men  of  independent  character,  if  party- 
connection,  and  the  net  has  been  draw  closer  over 
the  House.  Up  to  1904  it  was  said  that  only  three 
really  independent  members  had  sat  in  the  House 


222  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

of  Commons,  but  there  were  symptoms  of  a  decay 
of  docility.  Nothing  would  be  so  fatal  to  the  party- 
system,  and  the  Conservative  Government  became 
stringent.  "  No  man,"  said  an  expert  on  the  House, 
speaking  of  Mr  Balfour,  "  has  done  so  much  to  de- 
stroy the  power  of  the  House  over  the  Government  of 
the  day.  He  has  practically  converted  Parliament  into 
a  registering  body  to  ratify  the  decrees  of  the  execu- 
tive after  such  amount  of  grumbling  as  the  Prime 
Minister  sees  fit  to  permit."  About  the  same  date 
a  private  member  wrote  to  the  Times  (April  24th, 
1904) : 

"In  a  few  years'  time  the  non-professional 
politician,  the  man  of  independent  thought  and 
speech,  will  cease  to  exist  hi  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, and  his  place  will  be  taken  by  the  voting 
machine  who  will  be  a  joy  to  the  Whips,  but  who 
will  contribute  nothing  to  the  thought  or  to  the 
judgment  of  the  assembly." 

As  is  known,  the  private  member  has  already 
almost  lost  the  power  of  speaking  in  debate,  except 
on  the  "  private  members'  days,"  when  some 
measure  is  being  academically  discussed  which  no 
one  regards  as  serious.  The  speakers  are  arranged 
in  advance.  In  1911  Mr  Ginnell  made  a  violent  pro- 
test against  the  choice  of  Mr  Lowther  as  Speaker. 
He  denied  that  Mr  Lowther  was  impartial  in  calling 
upon  members  to  address  the  House,  and,  of  the 
many  Radical  members  who  agreed  with  Mr  Ginnell, 
one,  Mr  Wedgwood,  wrote  him  to  say  so.  We  re- 
member still  the  severe  rebuke  which  the  oligarchs 
inflicted.  Mr  Wedgwood  bowed  to  the  ground. 
Even  Mr  Ginnell  greatly  modified  his  charge,  though 
he  was  suspended  for  a  week,  by  811  votes  to  84. 
But,  incidentally,  the  public  learned  to  its  surprise 
that,  whenever  there  was  a  serious  or  "  full  dress  " 
debate,  the  Whips  supplied  the  Speaker  with  a  list 


THE   POWER   OF  THE   OLIGARCHS    228 

of  the  names  of  the  men  who  were  to  be  permitted 
to  speak ! 

Apart  from  these  serious  debates,  when  the  ordi- 
nary member  has  now  merely  to  listen  (if  he  cares) 
and  vote,  there  is  the  possibility  of  bringing  forward 
motions  or  asking  questions.  The  motion  is  easily 
defeated.  You  get  a  loyal  supporter  to  anticipate 
with  a  motion,  and  the  hostile  motion  cannot  be  put 
until  this  is  disposed  of;  and  the  member  who  has 
blocked  the  way  is  not  compelled  to  proceed  with  his 
motion  at  all.  The  critic  may,  in  his  indignation, 
move  the  adjournment  of  the  House,  but  he  will  be 
fortunate  if  he  knows  of  forty  independent  men 
to  support  him.  Most  members  know  that  it  is  a 
waste  of  time.  They  rely  on  questions  for  the  pur- 
pose of  criticism,  and  during  the  war  and  the  last 
twelve  months  some  very  effective  work  was  done  in 
this  way  by  judicious  critics.  Unhappily,  useful 
questions  were  apt  to  be  lost  in  the  flood  of  meticu- 
lous questions — such  as  whether  German  prisoners 
were  really  provided  with  felt  socks  in  their  boots — 
which  the  Pacifists  outpoured  day  by  day.  It  was, 
in  any  case,  exasperating  to  have  a  pert  Under- 
secretary making  a  reply  which  combined  the  mini- 
mum of  information  with  the  maximum  of  impud- 
ence. The  man  who  asks  searching  questions  is 
treated  as  a  pariah.  Compare  Lady  Astor's  lan- 
guage during  the  election  and  after  a  month  in 
Parliament. 

So  the  oligarchs  keep  their  "  team  "  together  until 
at  least  the  milestone  which  means  a  pension  is 
passed.  As  they  get  stale,  a  vernal  freshness  lights 
up  the  opposite  benches.  The  crucial  month  ap- 
proaches. The  parliamentary  situation  takes  on 
some  resemblance  to  billiards.  If  you  lose  your 
shot,  you  trust  to  leave  a  bad  table  for  your  op- 
ponent. The  penumbra  of  dissolution  steals  on,  and 
the  work  outside  Parliament  is  more  heroic  than 


224  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

inside.  The  war-chest  must  be  counted,  and  further 
contributions  be  discreetly  elicited.  The  new  cir- 
cular of  the  firm,  the  list  of  election-promises,  must 
be  composed.  Catch-phrases  must  be  invented,  lurid 
posters  devised  (they  still  linger  in  rural  constitu- 
encies), words  put  to  jingles  of  the  hour.  Orators, 
organisers,  journalists,  pamphleteers — grateful  for 
favours  to  come — must  be  flung  upon  the  public. 
It  is  a  quaint  way  of  conducting  the  business  of  a 
mighty  nation,  but  the  leaders  have  one  good  reply : 
the  public  seems  to  like  it. 

It  remains  only  to  consider  an  aspect  of  the 
question  which  provokes  extraordinarily  opposite 
opinions.  Whether  the  maintenance  of  the  system 
I  have  described  is  corruption  or  no  I  leave  to  the 
reader.  There  are  certainly  worse  political  systems. 
We  have  seen  the  American.  The  French  and  Italian 
political  worlds  have  during  the  last  forty  years 
produced  scandal  after  scandal.  All  the  heroism  of 
1816  to  1870,  all  the  blood  of  martyrs  to  the  Holy 
Alliance  and  its  successors,  ended  in  the  French  and 
Italian  oligarchies  of  the  last  forty  years.  The 
Spanish  is  even  worse.  A  Catholic  Spanish  writer 
says,  in  a  work  which  he  addresses  to  the  king,  that 
the  Spanish  political  system  is  characterised  by 
"profound  immorality  and  congenital  debility." 
Senor  Maura  himself,  the  ex-Premier,  said  in  the 
Cortes  in  1901  that  all  the  struggles  and  sacrifices 
of  the  nineteenth  century  had  only  established  "  an 
immense  imposture "  in  Spain.  It  is  the  closest 
European  counterpart  of  Tammany.  Portugal,  in 
our  own  days,  has  evicted  a  corrupt  king  to  instal 
a  set  of  very  questionable  politicians. 

The  taint  of  our  own  system  is  more  subtle,  and 
it  is  in  that  sense  that  we  have  to  examine  our 
"  scandals."  I  happened  to  be  in  one  of  our 
colonies  just  after  the  "  Marconi  scandal."  When 
I,  speaking  to  a  group  of  distinguished  colonial 


THE  POWER   OF  THE  OLIGARCHS    225 

politicians  in  their  House  of  Assembly,  deplored 
these  things,  they  looked  at  each  other  and  smiled. 
"  You  call  those  things  scandals  in  England,  do 
you  ?  "  said  one  of  them.  Yet  at  the  time  they  were, 
whatever  they  are  to-day,  under  the  impression  that 
some  of  our  statesmen  had  used  Government  in- 
fluence or  information  to  enrich  themselves. 

What  is  clear  about  what  is  called  the  "  Marconi 
scandal  "  is  that  ministers  have  a  large  power  of 
preventing  the  disclosure  of  undesirable  facts  in 
Parliament.  The  libel-court  ruled,  we  remember,  that 
no  English  politician  had  dealt  hi  English  Marconi 
shares,  which  went  up  nearly  four-fold  in  eight 
months  on  account  of  a  Government  contract.  One 
may  admit  that  in  more  than  one  continental 
country  deals  of  this  kind  by  politicians  would  be 
a  matter  of  course.  We  are  assured  that  no  such 
deal  occured  here.  Yet  the  facts,  which  are  now 
acknowledged,  were  kept  from  the  House  and  the 
public  as  long  as  possible.  They  were  dragged  from 
reluctant  witnesses.  The  Attorney-General  was  a 
brother  of  Marconi's  managing  director,  and  it  is 
not  unnatural  that  Godfrey  Isaacs  should  recom- 
mend American  Marconis  as  a  good  investment.  It 
turned  out  that  the  Government  contract  did  not 
help  the  American  Company.  Did  the  Master  of 
Elibank,  when  he  purchased  3000  American  shares 
for  the  Liberal  party,  think  that  there  might  be  an 
indirect  influence  on  the  Americans  ?  We  are  re- 
duced to  conjecture;  but  it  is  notorious  that  great 
pressure  was  required  to  elicit  these  innocent  facts. 

To  the  delight — I  mean  the  secret  delight,  but 
public  indignation — of  the  Conservatives,  the  "  Mar- 
coni scandal  "  was  followed  speedily  by  what  was 
called  "  the  Indian  silver  scandal."  Inarticulate 
members  dropped  on  the  luxurious  couches  at  the 
Carlton,  and  in  Conservative  houses.  This  was  what 
the  House  of  Commons  was  coming  to  in  our  Radical 
p 


226  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

age !  Mr  Lloyd  George  threw  at  them  some  rude 
insinuations  about  their  misdeeds  when  they  were  in 
power,  and  hastened,  in  view  of  the  approaching 
election,  to  set  the  Liberal  house  in  order.  The 
Government,  he  said,  had  defeated  a  ring  in  en- 
trusting the  purchase  of  silver  to  Messrs  S.  Mon- 
tagu £  Co.  But  the  firm  had  made  .£7513  broker- 
age ;  and  the  head  of  the  firm  was  Lord  Swathling, 
his  brother  was  Under  Secretary  for  India,  a  member 
of  the  firm  was  Liberal  M.P.  for  Whitechapel, 
and  a  relative  of  Lord  Swathling  was  Postmaster- 
General. 

In  such  circumstances  as  these  the  representatives 
of  the  people  need  the  fullest  power  of  inquiry. 
But,  as  we  saw  week  after  week  during  the  war, 
their  power  of  inquiry  is  very  limited.  The  instinct 
of  the  official  is  to  deny  and  conceal.  There  is  a 
ludicrous  supposition  that  even  under-secretaries 
and  their  underlings  never  err.  It  is  the  system  which 
prompts  this  ridiculous  attitude.  The  Opposition 
would  pounce  upon  any  admission  of  error  and  make 
a  national  catastrophe  of  it.  The  Government  plays 
the  game  by  suppressing  or  glossing  facts.  As  most 
of  the  press  is  divided  like  the  members  between 
the  two  parties,  it  is  a  safe  game.  One  set  of  papers 
will  harmlessly  fume :  their  rivals  will  accept  any 
explanation.  The  advantage  of  a  Coalition  is  that 
three-fourths  of  the  press  is  "  good."  The  oligarchs 
virtually  control  three-fourths  of  the  manufacturers 
of  public  opinion.  They  have  laboratories  of  pep- 
tonised  food  in  Downing  Street.  And  there  are 
knightly  spurs,  if  not  something  better,  on  the 
horizon  for  sensible  editors. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

THE  REPRESENTED  AND  THEIR  REPRESENTATIVES 

THE  obvious  reply  to  the  theme  of  the  last  chapter 
is  that  we  freely  choose  our  parliamentary  repre- 
sentatives, and  that  I  have  admitted  that  these  have 
the  power  to  break  an  inacceptable  ministry  at  any 
time.  How,  then,  can  one  speak  of  oligarchy?  I 
selected,  let  us  say,  at  the  last  election,  a  candidate 
who  was  pledged  to  support  Mr  Lloyd  George  and 
Mr  Bonar  Law.  He  believed,  as  I  believed,  that 
they  were  the  fittest  men  to  administer  the  country 
in  a  period  of  difficulty,  and  that  the  program  of 
action  they  put  before  us  was  sound.  To  put  it  in 
general  terms,  nine  out  of  fifteen  million  electors 
deliberately  entrusted  power  once  more  to  a  Govern- 
ment with  which  they  were  familiar,  and  instructed 
their  representatives  to  support  that  Government. 
Is  this  oligarchy  or  democracy  ?  Is  it  good  logic  or 
bad  temper  ? 

One  might  retort  at  once  that  if  this  ingenuous 
plea  were  admitted  one  could  not  easily  understand 
the  unpleasant  odour  that  attaches  to  the  name 
"  politician."  One  wonders  by  what  strange  hallu- 
cination Mr  Gladstone  was  brought  to  disparage 
politics  and  politicians,  why  Lord  Hugh  Cecil  so 
haltingly  says  that  his  world  contains  "  nothing 
that  can  properly  be  called  corruption,"  why  Mr 
J.  R.  Macdonald  thinks  that  it  is  very  difficult  to 
be  honest  in  Westminster.  One  is  astonished  that 
lawyers  thrive  so  well  in  this  simple,  democratic 
atmosphere,  and  that  the  House  resists  down  to  our 

227 


228  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

own  day  the  country's  praiseworthy  curiosity  to 
read  the  lists  of  subscribers  to  the  party-funds. 
But  we  may  take  the  alternative  course  of  examin- 
ing this  liberty  of  ours  to  choose  our  representatives 
and  this  supposed  power  of  theirs  to  control 
ministers. 

Let  me  revert  to  the  London  constituency  in 
which,  at  the  last  election,  three  men  "  solicited 
the  honour  "  of  representing  the  people  in  Parlia- 
ment. The  second  and  third  were  turned  down  so 
ruthlessly  that  each  forfeited  his  £150  deposit,  and 
probably  twice  that  sum  in  expenses.  They  will, 
of  course,  not  appear  again,  and  their  fate  will  not 
encourage  others.  That  is  the  first  limitation  of 
our  liberty.  The  oligarchs  have  laid  it  down  that 
any  candidate  for  Parliament  must  deposit  ,£150. 
Their  own  candidates  have  not  the  least  risk  of 
losing  it,  but  outside  candidates  have  a  very  serious 
risk.  They  have  further  laid  it  down  that  a  candi- 
date may  spend  from  one  to  two  thousand  pounds 
in  announcing  to  the  electors  that  he  will  support 
Mr  Bonar  Law  or  Mr  Lloyd  George,  or  both.  Their 
candidates  will  get  the  money.  There  are  rich 
party-chests,  recruited  by  effective  means  at  the 
disposal  of  the  oligarchs,  for' the  financing  of  poor, 
but  loyal,  men  and  the  assisting  of  others.  The 
outside  candidate  must  find  at  least  £500  out  of  his 
own  pocket,  and  even  with  this  he  has  little  chance 
against  a  man  with  £1500.  Further,  an  election,  in 
an  advanced  civilisation  like  ours,  has  a  very  ex- 
tensive business-side  which  demands  great  skill  and 
experience;  and  they  command  the  skilled  and 
experienced  men. 

We  do  not  seem  to  be  as  free  as  we  imagined. 
Suppose,  however,  that  we  had  a  few  hundred  well- 
to-do  and  virtuous  and  leisured  men  and  women, 
quite  indifferent  to  titles,  offices  and  other  political 
rewards,  ready  to  contest  every  constituency  in 


REPRESENTED  AND  REPRESENTATIVES  229 

Britain.  There  is,  of  course,  as  long  as  the  present 
system  lasts,  not  the  remotest  hope  of  returning  a 
majority,  or  even  a  very  large  minority,  of  such  men. 
Suppose  we  wished  to  respond  to  their  benevolent 
aspirations.  What  would  be  the  result  if  we  returned 
one  of  these,  after  listening  to  an  address  from  him — 
his  expenses  could  easily  be  kept  within  a  hundred 
pounds  but  for  the  rival  circus-display — and  ques- 
tioning him  ?  What  would  be  the  result  ?  We  should 
indeed  have  a  representative  in  Parliament,  and  he 
or  she  might  be  virtuous  and  cultivated,  but  he 
would  have  the  disadvantage  of  being  dumb.  Fifty 
such  members — a  hundred  such  members — would 
have  no  organisation,  no  common  links,  and  would 
count  for  little.  The  King  would  send  for  a  recog- 
nised party-leader,  and  the  customary  oligarchy 
would  be  installed.  If  the  Independents  were  numer- 
ous enough  to  form  a  dangerous  minority,  there 
would  be  a  Coalition  and  a  strategic  arrangement  of 
legislation.  Under  the  present  system,  in  other 
words,  we  have  to  choose  between  futility  and  one 
of  the  two  Parties.  The  oligarchs  have  seen  to  that. 
At  the  last  election  the  plain  issue  was  Coalition  or 
something  far  worse. 

This,  moreover,  is  on  the  theory  that  an  election 
is  a  pure  democratic  institution  in  which  the  free 
and  independent  citizen,  no  longer  terrorised  by 
employer  or  landlord  at  an  open  poll,  registers  his 
simple-souled  conviction  on  national  issues.  For  the 
great  majority  it  is,  of  course,  nothing  of  the  kind. 
The  amplest  advantage  is  taken  of  ignorance,  greed, 
and  frivolity.  The  party-machinery  encourages, 
not  the  new  tendencies  to  honest  political  life,  but 
every  lingering  tendency  to  sacrifice  one's  democratic 
duty  to  other  considerations. 

A  veteran  political  worker  published  a  volume  of 
reminiscences  some  years  ago.*  He  recalls,  almost 

*  Reminiscences  of  a  Country  Politician,  by  J.  A.  Bridges,  1906. 


230  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

with  affection,  the  elections  of  fifty  years  ago,  and 
there  is  one  page  that  may  be  reproduced  since  it 
quaintly  illustrates  how  men  of  strict  honour  in  the 
other  relations  of  life  are  guilty  of  strange  aberra- 
tions when  they  enter  politics.  It  refers  to  an  elec- 
tion at  Bridgnorth  in  (I  calculate)  1865.  It  had 
been  a  Tory  pocket-borough,  the  small  number  of 
freeman-voters  being  regularly  bribed  and  intoxi- 
cated by  the  sitting  member.  In  1865  Sir  John 
Acton  (later  Baron  Acton),  the  well-known  Catholic 
scholar  and  intimate  friend  of  Gladstone,  chose  to 
contest  this  corrupt  seat  in  the  Liberal  interest. 
Everyone  is  acquainted  with  Acton's  ideals  and  pro- 
fessions, but  it  seems  that  he  met  the  conditions 
much  more  easily  than  Gladstone  had  done.  Bridges 
interviewed  a  tile-maker  and  farmer  who  had 
hitherto  voted  Tory,  because  the  Tory  member  was 
his  landlord  and  the  Tory  agent  rented  his  shooting. 
He  was  now  independent  and  doubtful.  He  calmly 
opened  his  business-books  and  looked  which  of  the 
three  candidiates  had  dealt  most  heavily  with  him. 
Even  Sir  J.  Acton  had  bought  tiles  to  "  a  consider- 
able amount,"  but  the  Tory  candidate  had  bid 
higher  and  got  the  vote. 

Worse  follows.  At  this  election  in  which  an 
idealist  entered  the  running*  "  votes  reached  a  value 
that  the  oldest  freeman  had  never  dared  to  hope 
for  and  that  they  were  never  to  reach  again."  and 
Sir  J.  Acton  personally  engaged  in  the  traffic.  On 
the  day  of  the  election  three  small  traders  were  still 
"  neutral."  Sir  John  was  seen  to  enter  the  shop 
of  one  and  the  Tory  agent  hurried  after  him,  to  see 
what  he  was  purchasing.  He  found  the  shop  empty, 
and  waited  in  vain.  Sir  J.  Acton  had  departed  by  the 
back  door.  The  Liberal  candidate  entered  the  shop 
of  the  second  trader,  and  the  Tory  agent  learned 
and  went  after  him.  Again  the  business  was  done 
in  an  inner  room,  and  Sir  J.  Acton  went  out  by  the 


REPRESENTED  AND  REPRESENTATIVES  231 

back  door.  The  third  trader  was  induced  in  the 
same  way  to  part  with  his  neutrality.  Both  sides 
had  imported  gangs  of  roughs,  and  there  were 
bloody  fights.  Acton's  men  seized  a  half-drunken 
butcher  whom  the  Tory  agent  was  piloting  to  the 
poll,  and  carried  him  off  to  vote  Liberal.  They  did 
the  same  with  two  men  who  were  waiting  for  the 
bribe  promised  them  by  the  Tories.  Sir  J.  Acton 
won  the  seat  by  one  vote. 

These  things  happened  sixty  years  ago.  The 
point  of  interest  is  in  connection  with  the  assurance, 
still  blandly  forced  on  us,  that  "  gentlemen  "  do  not 
do  things  which  the  law  forbids;  for  bribery  was 
strictly  forbidden  even  in  1865.  Sir  J.  Acton  was 
merely  our  "  Nabob  "  over  again.  He  made  the 
corruption  worse.  In  fact,  candidates  generally 
left  these  things  to  their  agents.  Bridges  asked  his 
chairman  of  committee,  a  clergyman,  what  price  he 
might  rise  to  in  the  case  of  a  particularly  exacting 
voter.  "  For  goodness  sake  don't  tell  me  anything 
about  it,"  said  the  clergyman.  "  Do  what  you 
think  best." 

In  the  course  of  the  long  period  surveyed  by  this 
reminiscent  country  politician  we  see  a  considerable 
change  come  over  local  politics.  The  fighting— 
rather  to  his  regret — disappears.  The  crude  bribery 
is  replaced  by  subtler  forms.  The  Tories,  he  says, 
still  deliberately  cultivate  the  parson  and  the  pub- 
lican; though  he  would  like  his  Party  to  desert  the 
clergy  as  "it  would  perforce  make  men  of  the 
cringing  toadies  whose  cry,  like  that  of  the  daughters 
of  the  horse-leech,  is  '  give,  give.' '  The  publican  is 
too  precious  an  ally.  The  more  purchasable,  or  less 
serious,  voters  meet  in  his  rooms.  Smoking-concerts 
with  free  drinks  are  arranged  with  him.  Temporary 
clubs  are  housed  in  his  premises.  There  is  generally 
a  "  room  upstairs  "  which  is  very  useful.  ^ 

If  any  person  doubts  whether  there  is   still  inS. 


232  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

England  any  large  amount  of  this  new  form  of  cor- 
ruption at  elections  I  would  urge  him  to  study 
Electioneering  Up  to  Date,  by  Mr  C.  R.  Buxton.  It 
deals  with  the  elections  so  recent  as  1895,  1900  and 
1906,  and  there  has  been  no  material  change  since 
then.  It  chiefly  puts  together  the  reports  of  260 
candidates  at  the  1906  election  and  details  revealed 
at  election-inquiries.  No  doubt  they  were  largely 
disappointed  candidates,  and  one  must  set  aside  as 
"  non-proven  "  much  that  they  say.  But  there  re- 
mains a  mass  of  proved  corruption,  in  every  part  of 
Britain,  which  goes  far  to  explain  how  those  of  us 
who  would  like  to  take  political  life  seriously  are 
thwarted. 

He  gives  first  concrete  instances  of  "  ground- 
baiting,"  or  the  distribution  of  coals,  .food,  drink, 
etc.,  in  view  of  an  approaching  election.  The  Bir- 
mingham Daily  Post  (7th  January  1895)  recom- 
mended Colonel  Long  for  the  Evesham  division  on 
the  ground  (amongst  others)  that  he  sent  meat 
several  times  a  week  to  a  rheumatic  patient,  and 
eventually  sent  him  to  Droitwich  baths.  Must  not 
a  man  be  philanthropic  because  he  is  going  to  put 
up  for  Parliament?  Somehow  it  recalls  the  old 
pictures  of  Lord  Wharton,  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury :  the  London  dandy  who  knew  every  worker's 
child  in  his  constituency  and  swore  he  must  "  have 
a  glass  of  ale  with  Tom  "  when  he  called  at  a  cot- 
tage. In  the  Haggerston  petition  it  was  proved  that 
the  Unionist  candidate  made  food-tickets  (sixpence 
each)  of  his  private  cards  and  distributed  fifty  a  day 
to  "  deserving  applicants."  At  Hull  a  speaker, 
mentioning  that  Lord  George  Hamilton  had  secured 
£900,000  worth  of  business  while  member  for  Hull, 
was  reported  as  saying :  "  Am  I  not  right  when 
I  say  I  am  a  strong  advocate  for  a  very  good  dose 
of  bread  and  butter  politics"  The  Manchester 
Guardian  quoted  this  item  from  the  election-poster 


REPRESENTED  AND  REPRESENTATIVES  233 

of  a  candidate  at  Camborne :  "  Eighthly,  he  sub- 
scribed large  sums  to  deserving  local  institutions 
and  charities,  and,  ninthly,  he  contributed  £100  a 
year  to  the  Miners'  Accident  Fund."  In  a  bye- 
election  in  the  Cricklade  division  (1898)  some  of 
Lord  Emlyn's  tenants  issued  a  letter  recommending 
his  candidature  on  the  ground  (amongst  other  phil- 
anthropies) that  "  if  anyone  goes  to  the  Golden 
Grove  [his  house]  on  errands  or  business,  they 
have  a  pint  of  good  ale,  bread  and  cheese,  and  a 
shilling." 

In  the  Yarmouth  petition-case  it  was  proved  that 
the  candidate  had  held  many  meetings,  at  which  free 
drinks  were  given,  in  public-houses.  At  Droitwich 
a  publican  who  was  charged  with  permitting  drunk- 
enness on  his  premises  pleaded  that  it  was  at  a 
private  "  political  smoking-concert,"  and  it  was 
elicited  that  the  local  agent  of  the  Conservative 
Association  paid  for  the  room  and  seven  bottles  of 
whisky,  cigars,  and  beer  for  ninety  people.  In  the 
Worcester  petition-case,  which  was  abandoned,  there 
was  evidence  for  production  that  a  National  Con- 
servative League  had  eleven  lodges  in  Worcester  and 
held  smoking-concerts  weekly  in  public-houses,  at 
which  the  chairman  stood  drinks.  The  same  thing 
was  done  in  practically  all  the  villages  of  Shropshire 
and  Worcestershire.  In  the  Rochester  case  evidence 
was  given  of  tickets  which  entitled  a  man  to  a  meal 
of  sandwiches,  ale  and  claret,  being  sold  at  three- 
pence. In  the  Bodmin  petition  the  Cornwall  Liberal 
Social  Council  was  found  to  have  invited  all  electors 
to  an  "  At  Home  "  at  Lord  Clif den's  seat,  with  free 
supper.  In  another  west-country  town  a  candidate 
paid  an  agent  £300  a  year  to  extol  his  generosity 
in  the  local  press.  In  the  Times  of  February  llth, 
1895,  it  was  said  that  the  Liberal  candidate  for  Col- 
chester had  given  "  a  magnificent  donation  for  a 
free  library  "  and  had  got  large  business  for  the 


234  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

town;  and  next  day  the  agent  of  the  Conservative 
candidate  hotly  retorted  that  his  man  had  spent 
enormous  sums  in  Colchester  and  paid  f or  "  a  whole- 
sale distribution  of  coals."  The  Oswestry  Adver- 
tiser published  a  letter  from  a  "  Tory  Squiress," 
in  which  she  rejoiced  that  the  happy  result  of  the 
Oswestry  election  would  save  her  a  hundred  pounds 
a  year  in  entertainments,  contributions,  etc.,  since 
she  could  now  leave  these  to  the  new  member. 

This  is  a  selection  of  Mr  Buxton's  concrete  cases 
of  "  ground-baiting."  These  are  not  rumours,  or 
confined  to  backward  localities.  They  reach  from 
Haggerston  to  Bodmin,  and  illustrate  a  national 
system.  Probably  few  are  ignorant  that  this  system 
thrives  to-day.  Our  judges  have  ruled  that  a  parlia- 
mentary candidate  has  a  right  to  spend  money  in 
order  to  secure  "  popularity,"  but  not  to  secure 
votes.  Of  course,  all  they  aim  at  is  popularity. 
To  the  votes  which  follow  they  are  indifferent.  As 
that  classic  politician,  Lord  Wharton,  said,  when 
the  labourer's  wife  assured  him  that  her  husband's 
vote  was  safe :  "I  don't  care  about  that — I  want 
to  have  a  glass  of  ale  with  Tom."  Within  the  last 
year  or  two  I  had  occasion  to  stay  a  few  days 
with  a  well-known  family  in  a  county  town.  They 
described  in  detail  how  the  sitting  member  was 
drenching  the  poorer  districts  with  small  benefac- 
tions week  by  week,  and  these  districts  would  vote 
almost  solid  for  him.  But  "  nursing  "  constituencies 
is  no  secret.  Yet  it  is  a  thoroughly  tainted  and 
most  important  part  of  our  present  system. 

This  sort  of  thing  is  legal.  Our  statesmen  have 
seen  to  it  that  the  Corrupt  Practices  Act  leaves  ample 
room  for  the  peculiar  advantages  of  the  party- 
organisation  against  the  honest  Independent.  Cor- 
ruption at,  or  just  before,  elections  is  not  now  legal, 
but  it  is  rife  all  over  England.  Again  I  will  venture 
to  borrow  a  few  instances,  mostly  of  the  1906  elec- 


REPRESENTED  AND  REPRESENTATIVES  235 

tion,  from  Mr  Buxton's  book  and  from  an  article 
by  Mr  J.  Fisher  in  the  Independent  Review,  April 
1906. 

Philanthropy,  of  course,  takes  on  a  Christmas 
glow  when  an  election  is  believed  to  approach. 
Dr hiking-clubs  rise  like  mushrooms,  and  like  mush- 
rooms will  wither  away  when  the  election  is  over, 
and  free  drinks  no  longer  add  to  their  attractive- 
ness. Small  parcels  of  coals  and  groceries  fall  in 
showers.  Kindly  ladies  visit  the  homes  of  poor 
mothers  and  see  that  mother  and  babe  have  good 
milk  in  abundance.  Dainty  dames  press  sweets  on 
dirty  urchins  at  street  corners.  Suppers  and  smok- 
ing-concerts  multiply,  and  grow  cheaper  as  they 
multiply.  Strangers  arrive  in  the  town  with  full 
pockets,  and  believe  so  strongly  in  their  impartial 
opinion  of  Mr ,  the  Liberal  or  Conservative  can- 
didate, that  they  are  willing  to  stand  drinks  all 
round  to  any  who  will  listen.  Local  politicians  or 
municipal  officers — whose  names  will  surely  be  re- 
ported to  the  headquarters  of  the  caucus — ooze 
whiskey  and  drop  cigars. 

There  is  a  mass  of  evidence  of  these  things  in 
1906,  and  anybody  who  cares  to  take  the  trouble 
could  collect  the  evidence  for  1918.  At  one  place 
the  mayor  of  the  city  accompanied  the  candidate 
round  the  public-houses  and  scattered  whiskies  and 
sodas  and  cigars.  At  another  place  several  unknown 
men,  who  disappeared  again  after  the  election, 
backed  a  certain  candidate's  merits  with  the  same 
liberality.  In  many  towns  sums  were  deposited 
with  publicans  before  polling  day,  and  free  drinks 
were  supplied  to  men  introduced  by  the  agents;  or 
beer  fell  amazingly  in  price,  and  the  publican  re- 
covered his  loss  somewhere  afterwards.  In  one  town 
a  titled  lady  canvasser  told  a  poor  woman,  whose 
house  she  visited,  to  send  her  dairy-bill  to  the  Hall. 
In  another  a  district-visitor,  who  was  canvassing, 


236  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

distributed  sugar  and  syrup,  with  a  graceful  refer- 
ence to  the  Conservative  candidate,  a  few  days  be- 
fore the  election,  and  declined  to  distribute  it  where 
the  sentiment  was  known  to  be  Radical.  In  other 
places  beef  was  generously  distributed.  In  a  Shrop- 
shire village  ten  hundredweight  of  coal  was  delivered 
to  each  worker  with  the  message  (by  the  carter) : 
"  This  is  from  a  Tory  :  what  have  the  Liberals  done 
for  you  ?  "  Elsewhere,  in  many  places,  local  charit- 
able bequests  were  made  to  serve  political  objects. 
In  a  London  constituency  1070  Christmas  parcels, 
worth  three  shillings  and  sixpence  each,  were  given 
away  three  weeks  before  the  election. 

Treating  is  quite  general  in  England  at  election- 
time.  The  Act  of  1854  had  only  forbidden  the  can- 
didate to  treat.  The  Corrupt  Practices  Act  of  1883 
made  what  seemed  elaborate  regulations  to  prevent 
any  person  from  treating  for  him,  and  punished  the 
receiver  as  well.  But  Mr  Fisher  gives  plenty  ^of 
positive  evidence  that  treating  is  common,  though 
it  would  be  difficult  to  prove  it  legally.  In  the 
course  of  his  inquiries  a  single  publican  told  him 
that  he  controlled  ninety  votes.  In  very  many  places 
the  price  of  beer  was  lowered,  or  abolished,  and 
drinking  clubs  were  temporarily  formed.  Mr  Bux- 
ton  shows  that  in  the  week  ending  July  15th,  1895, 
the  revenue  from  beer  was  £337,000  more  than  in 
the  corresponding  week  for  1894.  One  million 
barrels  of  beer  above  the  ordinary  flow  were  con- 
sumed in  Britain  that  week.  The  general  election 
had  taken  place  on  the  13th. 

Another  trick  is  for  wealthy  people  to  hold  up 
their  subscriptions  to  local  causes,  if  there  is  a 
Liberal  candidate  in  the  field,  until  the  result  of 
the  election  is  known.  Shopkeepers  and  workers 
who  openly  state  their  sentiments,  or  do  not  em- 
phatically declare  for  a  particular  side,  lose  their 
customers  after  the  election.  Mr  Buxton  quotes  a 


REPRESENTED  AND  REPRESENTATIVES    237 

passage  from  the  Parish  Magazine  of  the  Rev.  A.  P. 
Upcher,  vicar  of  Halesworth  and  Chediston  :  "  We 
must  see  that  we  support  and  patronise  in  trade 
only  those  who  are  loyal  to  the  Church  "  (p.  37). 
He  reproduces  letters  written  to  Liberal  tradesmen 
on  the  eve  of  an  election,  saying  that  they  may  send 
in  their  Bills  if  they  support  the  Liberal  candidate. 
The  Primrose  League  of  Leamington  (Hants)  issued 
a  list  marking  the  local  traders  who  were  to  be 
dealt  with  or  avoided.  A  Liberal  grocer,  after  a 
bye-election,  lost  £80  of  his  turnover  in  six  months. 
Specific  cases  are  quoted  of  threats  of  loss  of  em- 
ployment, or  promises  of  employment,  according  as 
a  man  voted. 

Employers  of  one  or  other  party  make  use  of  their 
power  in  the  interest  of  their  candidate.  Most 
people  will  remember  a  notorious  case  not  many 
years  ago,  in  which  a  Liverpool  ship-repairer  kept 
a  body  of  hostile  workers  in  the  middle  of  the  Mer- 
sey until  the  poll  was  closed.  Mr  Buxton  adds 
many  instances.  One  candidate  is  taken  over  the 
works,  and  given  every  advantage,  while  his  rival 
is  excluded.  Workers  who  are  known  to  be  on  the 
same  side  as  the  employer  get  special  facilities  for 
voting  and  workmen  who  are  known  to  be  on  the 
other  side — and  the  opinions  of  the  great  majority 
are  well  known  in  every  shop — get  the  reverse. 
Employers  canvass  the  works  for  their  candidate. 
No  doubt  many  men  will  sign,  and  vote  otherwise, 
but  in  one  works  in  1906,  situated  in  a  constituency 
of  only  6000  voters,  a  thousand  written  promises  to 
vote  for  a  particular  candidate  were  secured. 
Amongst  the  agricultural  workers  the  belief  is 
fostered  that  the  ballot  is  not  really  secret.  It  was 
reported  in  the  Sussex  Daily  News  (7th  November 
1904)  that  a  candidate  was  asked  at  a  meeting  if 
the  ballot  was  secret.  It  is  said  that  he  refused  to 
answer,  but  that  his  chairman,  Sir  H.  Harben, 


238  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

observed  that  he  "  did  not  believe  it  was."  There 
are  places  in  which  the  villagers  are  told  that  there 
are  mirrors  in  the  voting  stand  by  which  votes  can 
be  read.  Farmers  and  house-owners  in  rural  dis- 
tricts are  especially  bad.  We  talk  of  the  incubus  of 
the  reactionary  agricultural  voter,  but  few  realise 
how  widely  the  system  of  intimidation  and  tempta- 
tion still  prevails. 

We  now  see  the  value  of  the  pretty  theory  that 
fifteen  million  free  and  indepndent  electors,  the 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  adults  of  the  country, 
deliberately  choose  to  return  men  who  will,  as  they 
well  know,  accept  the  leaders  whom  I  have  called 
oligarchs.  A  vast  proportion  of  the  voters  are 
bribed,  intimidated,  seduced,  or  mentally  fuddled. 
Leaving  out  those  who  are  intimidated — and  we  may 
admit  that  their  number  decreases  at  every  election — 
it  may  be  pleaded  that  one  cannot  blame  politicians 
if  men  choose  to  let  their  convictions  be  influenced 
by  the  paltry  bribe  of  a  few  free  drinks.  The  evidence 
I  have  quoted  shows  that  this  is  a  quite  inadequate 
and  sophistical  way  of  putting  the  matter.  To 
millions  of  our  people  it  is  a  material  thing  to  have 
in  their  district  an  "  open-handed  gentleman  "  of 
great  wealth.  For  millions  of  others  what  our  judges 
call  "  popularity  "  turns  the  human  scale.  I  was 
in  South  Wales  on  the  eve  of  the  last  election,  and 
listened  to  two  fairly  educated  women  discussing 

the  prospect.     The  elder  would  vote  ior  Dr , 

a  sincere,  grave,  rather  Radical  worker.  The  other 
was  to  vote  for  his  opponent  because  he  was  "  a  nice 
man."  What  do  such  people  know  about  the  pos- 
sible issue  to  their  country  of  choosing  between 
A  and  B?  I  will  go  so  far  as  to  admit  that  at 
several  general  elections  I,  a  trained  student  of 
politics,  refused  to  vote  for  either  the  Liberal  or  the 
Conservative  candidate  because  it  was  impossible  to 
say  which  was  the  less  harmful.  In  millions  of  less 


REPRESENTED  AND  REPRESENTATIVES  239 

educated  minds  a  glow  of  popularity,  or  "  a  good 
dose  of  bread-and-butter  politics,"  easily  weights 
dice. 

It  is  a  pernicious  system,  a  corrupt  system. 
Every  single  trick  which  I  have  described  ought  to 
be  rigorously  forbidden  and  punished.  In  every 
single  case  the  object  was,  transparently,  to  influ- 
ence votes  by  corrupt  means.  Every  means  is  cor- 
rupt which  is  not  a  purely  immaterial  appeal  to  the 
intelligence  of  the  elector.  Treating,  in  particular, 
is  one  of  the  most  repulsive  ways  of  influencing 
electors  that  could  be  imagined.  The  people  who 
give  and  take  such  bribes  ought  to  be  punished  by 
the  total  prohibition  of  treating  from  the  time  the 
election  is  announced  until  it  is  over.  Free  drinks 
and  cheap  beer  are  easily  detected  and  punished. 
But  both  our  great  political  parties  know  that  these 
things  are  done  for  them,  and  they  will  not  move. 
They  know  that  for  every  petition  one  of  them 
brings,  the  other  side  will  bring  a  petition;  so  they 
"  pair."  They  know  that  the  Independent  who 
wants  to  bring  a  petition — in  the  nation's  interest- 
must  have  a  few  thousand  pounds  to  sacrifice;  and 
they  have  no  mind  to  alter  that. 

In  fact,  the  difficulty  of  proving  corruption  in  the 
legal  sense,  though  you  may  bring  evidence  enough 
in  the  human  sense,  is  almost  prohibitive.  Of 
forty-two  petitions  brought  between  1886  and  1906, 
after  the  passing  of  an  elaborate  Corrupt  Practices 
Act,  twenty-six  were  rejected  by  the  judges.  I  have 
already  quoted  Mr  Justice  Grantham's  ruling  that 
a  candidate  may  spend,  some  time  before  the  elec- 
tion, to  secure  popularity.  Baron  Fitzgerald  would 
not  rule  that  it  was  corrupt  for  landowners  to  gather 
at  the  door  of  the  polling-station,  though  he  said : 
"  I  entertain  grave  doubts  whether  it  is  either  pru- 
dent or  proper."  Mr  Justice  Bruce,  who  presided 
over  the  Haggerston  inquiry  in  1895,  exonerated 


240  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

the  candidate  who,  four  or  five  months  before  the 
election,  distributed  five  hundred  of  his  visiting 
cards  entitling  the  recipient  to  food.  This  is  the 
official  interpretation  of  the  Act  of  1883.  It  evid- 
ences the  popular  political  interpretation  of  it  for 
the  last  sixteen  years.  But  our  statesmen  say  that 
the  law  is  adequate. 

This  by  no  means  exhausts  the  grossness  of  our 
electoral  system.  Ostrogorski  quotes  a  well-known 
Conservative  organiser,  Mr  J.  H.  Bottomley,  saying 
in  1889 : 

"  The  franchise  has  been  made  a  mockery,  and 
we  must  clear  away  the  endless  scandals  of  the 
Revision  Courts.  The  law  on  the  subject  is  a 
sealed  book  except  to  a  few,  and  those  who  are 
neither  Tories  nor  Radicals — the  neutrals — politi- 
cal outcasts — suffer  most.  .  .  .  The  register,  when 
complete,  is  a  trophy  of  party  trickery  and 
manipulation." 

That  is  still  true.  The  law,  framed  by  politicians, 
reads  as  if  it  were  written  expressly  for  the  purposes 
of  the  local  party-organisers.  One  would  like  to 
know  what  proportion  of  voters  could  say,  if  they 
have  not  been  instructed  by  a  party-agent,  and  have 
not  lived  many  years  in  a  house,  what  are  the  precise 
conditions  of  their  right  to  vote :  or  how  many 
lodgers  know  whether  they  are  true  citizens  or  no. 
The  local  organisers  and  their  lawyers  settle  the 
whole  business,  and  the  fight  is  marked  by  chivalry 
of  a  peculiar  kind.  I  once,  being  rather  disgusted 
at  the  conduct  of  a  Nonconformist  of  particularly 
unctuous  piety,  told  the  Tory  organisers  that,  to 
my  absolute  knowledge,  his  son,  who  exercised  a 
lodger-vote,  was  not  a  lodger.  Nothing  came  of  it. 
They  "paired."  Such  cases  are  numerous.  The 
admirer  of  bluff  British  common  sense  and  honesty 
ought  to  attend  the  Revision  Courts  in  September 


REPRESENTED  AND  REPRESENTATIVES    241 

and  October.  This  whole  department  of  electoral 
life  is  in  scandalous  need  of  reform. 

In  all  these  and  other  ways  the  tendency,  if  not 
the  aim,  of  the  machine  is  to  discourage  the  amateur 
(the  Independent)  from  meddling  with  a  skilled  and 
costly  game.  The  conditions  are  kept  such  that  only 
a  powerful  and  wealthy  organisation  can  attend 
adequately  to  this  important  section  of  the  game. 
The  oligarchs  lay  it  down  that  a  sum  five  or  ten 
times  what  is  really  needed  to  put  one's  views  before 
the  electorate  may  be  spent  by  each  candiate.  His 
friends  more  or  less  crudely  spend  more  for  him,  and 
provide  vehicles  to  give  him  an  advantage  over  a 
poorer  candidate.  The  return  of  his  expenses  is  not 
subjected  to  any  very  elaborate  check.  There  is, 
perhaps,  fifty  or  a  hundred  pounds  for  an  astute 
election-agent.  Most  people  who  belong  to  that 
world  know  that  this  is  often  only  an  instalment. 
Especially  if  the  candidate  succeeds,  the  agent  may 
expect  a  handsome  "  present "  some  time  after- 
wards. Other  workers  are  "honorary."  Some  of 
them  will  appear  presently  on  the  Borough  or  Dis- 
trict Council,  helped  by  the  machinery  to  which 
they  lent  their  aid  in  the  general  election.  Some 
are  tradesmen,  contractors,  employers,  etc. ;  and 
one  good  turn  deserves  another.  An  encyclopaedic 
work  on  our  electoral  machinery  would  surprise 
many  people  who  think  that  political  life  is  very 
simple. 

The  orgie  of  promises  and  counter-promises,  in 
fine,  must  be  borne  in  mind,  though  we  have  already 
considered  this.  The  pyrotechnic  display  in  an 
election-month  does  certainly  grow  more  sober. 
One  can  remember  occasions  within  the  last  twenty 
years  when  the  hoarding  of  London  or  Manchester 
bore  ghastly  loads  of  crude  colouring.  The  prime 
joke  was  for  each  party  to  represent  the  other  as 
a  compound  of  Bill  Sikes  and  the  Artful  Dodger 


242  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

picking  the  pockets  of  a  particularly  stupid-looking 
citizen.  Myriads  of  broadsides,  of  the  humour 
(without  the  art)  of  the  eighteenth  century,  were 
plastered  over  the  country.  One  voted  for  the 
broadest  joke.  These  things  linger  in  the  rural 
constituencies.  Politics  never  attempt  to  lift  up. 

In  the  cities  we  now  rely  on  strong  print.  Phrases 
are  priceless,  especially  if  they  are  alliterative. 
Qualifications  of  the  weirdest  description  appear. 
Personal  records  are  polished  until  they  shine;  and 
in  a  few  days  after  you  have  read  them,  a  canvasser 
of  the  opposite  side  comes  to  whisper  insinuations 
about  them  at  your  door.  Men  who  were  playing 
billiards  when  you  were  reading  Sidgwick  or  Dun- 
ning or  Ostrogorski  insist  on  pushing  into  your 
dining-room  and  giving  you  elementary  lessons.  If 
the  candidate  has  a  pretty  wife,  he  sends  her  as  a 
sample  of  his  political  convictions. 

So  we  muddle  through  an  election  in  England  in 
the  second  decade  of  the  twentieth  century.  As  far 
as  one  can  gather,  we  are  not  far  advanced  beyond 
the  Athens  of  2300  years  ago.  The  mischief  is  that 
our  politicians  are  not  eager  to  see  us  advance. 
Every  extension  of  the  franchise  and  refinement  of 
the  system  has  been  forced  on  them.  The  system  suits 
them.  We  are  controlled  by  a  country- wide  machine, 
and  it  is  controlled  by  a  few  oligarchs  or  oligarchable 
persons.  The  machine  leaves  us — I  will  consider  the 
Labour  Party  later — only  two  alternatives.  We 
shall  vote  either  Liberal  or  Conservative;  or  throw 
away  our  vote.  Twenty  men  sit  in  one  chamber  in 
Westminster  and  construct  a  program.  Twenty 
rivals  meet  in  another  chamber  and  construct  a 
different  program.  Neither  set  of  program-makers 
has  consulted  us,  beyond  a  certain  prudential  regard 
for  "  the  feeling  of  the  country."  What  they  chiefly 
want  is  election,  or  re-election.  It  matters  very 
little  what  the  local  candidiate  says  in  his  program. 


REPRESENTED  AND  REPRESENTATIVES    243 

He  will  agree  to  almost  anything  we  want,  and  after- 
wards justly  plead  that  we  also  accepted  him  as  a 
supporter  of  the  Conservative  or  the  Liberal  party, 
and  he  was  bound  by  its  decisions.  We,  the  self- 
governing  people,  are  almost  helpless.  Every  few 
years  some  of  our  journals  announce  that  the  party- 
system  is  "  breaking  up."  It  is  not.  It  is  as  strong 
as  ever.  And  we  are  as  much  enslaved  by  it  as 
ever. 


CHAPTER   XIV 

IN  THE  PARLIAMENTARY  LABYRINTH 

THE  very  recent  case  of  Lady  Astor  will  have  splut- 
tered angrily  on  the  lips  of  many  as  they  read  the 
last  chapter.  Just  as  I  write  of  closed  systems  and 
oligarchs,  it  will  be  said,  an  independent  lady  routs 
her  official  opponent  and  makes  her  way  to  the 
House.  On  what  precise  grounds  Lady  Astor  won 
her  election,  or  what  was  the  psychology  of  the  con- 
stituency in  returning  her,  would  entail  a  lengthier 
analysis  than  we  can  make  here.  Broadly,  she  was 
going  to  introduce  common  sense,  economy  and  the 
superior  wisdom  of  woman's  intuition  into  Parlia- 
ment. But  within  three  weeks  the  London  Press 
reported  her  as  using  language  which  seemed  to  in- 
timate a  profound  and  speedy  disillusion.  Lady 
Astor  has  not  the  savoir  faire  of  Labouchere,  or  the 
resolute  practical  sense  of  Sir  A.  Markham  or  Sir  H. 
Dalziel.  It  may  be  that  the  very  qualities  which 
carried  her  through  the  election  will  detract  from 
her  usefulness  in  that  best  of  all  clubs,  and  most 
backward  of  all  assemblies,  the  House  of  Commons. 
Probably  a  new  member  thinks  he  will  snatch  an 
hour  or  two  sometime  in  the  fortnight  of  congratula- 
tions for  the  purpose  of  studying  the  procedure  of 
the  grave  body  to  which  he  is  promoted.  He  may 
be  recommended  to  go  at  once  to  the  most  accurate 
and  painstaking  and  sympathetic  of  all  guides  to 
the  House,  Sir  T.  Erskine  May's  Law,  Privileges, 
Proceedings  and  Usages  of  Parliament.  It  runs  to 
906  large  pages  of  condensed  matter.  One  would 

244 


IN  THE  PARLIAMENTARY  LABYRINTH    245 

require  three  years'  assiduous  study  to  master  it; 
and  then  there  would  remain  the  extraordinary 
mass  of  unwritten  law  (in  the  empirical  sense  of  the 
word)  and  procedure  which  to  the  aspiring  politician 
is  even  more  important.  The  new  member  gener- 
ally prefers  to  rely  on  Providence  and  a  few  other 
friends  of  some  experience,  and  walk  warily  and 
silently  for  the  first  few  months.  The  path  is  strewn 
with  pitfalls  and  obstacles. 

A  glance  at  the  staff  of  the  House  would  warn 
any  cautious  man  at  once  that  this  is  no  simple 
world  of  expressing  opinions  into  which  he  has  wan- 
dered. The  central  figure  is  the  Speaker,  originally 
a  robust  gentleman  chosen  from  the  body  of  the 
members  to  "  speak  "  for  them  to  the  king  when- 
ever a  painful  occasion  arose  for  them  to  do  so. 
He  is  now  the  Chairman  of  the  House,  though 
old  hands  would  probably  be  in  danger  of  apoplexy 
if  some  blunt  innovator  proposed  that  he  should  be 
called  by  that  name.  But  he  is  a  Chairman  of  a 
peculiar  kind.  His  extraordinary  knowledge  and 
onerous  duties  are  recognised  by  the  House  granting 
him  £5000  a  year  (the  salary  of  five  distinguished 
professors),  a  mansion  of  a  very  expensive  type,  a 
legal  assistant  with  £1800  a  year,  and  a  secretary 
with  £500  a  year.  This  is  a  measure  of  the  com- 
plexity of  the  rules  and  procedure  he  has  to  see 
carried  out. 

But  this  does  not  exhaust  the  impressiveness  of 
the  staff.  At  times  the  House  must  call  itself  a 
committee,  and  for  these  occasions  another  learned 
gentleman,  the  Chairman  of  Committees,  has  to  be 
detained  at  a  salary  of  £2500  a  year,  and  behind 
him  is  a  Deputy-Chairman  with  £1000  a  year.  Then 
there  is  a  Clerk  with  £2000  a  year  and  a  Chaplain 
with  £400  a  year.  At  times,  again,  the  House  is 
under  the  necessity  of  communicating  with  the 
House  of  "  Barons,  Earls,  Archbishops  and 


246  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

Bishops,"  and  this  is  a  costly  and  elaborate  busi- 
ness. A  Gentleman  Usher  of  the  Black  Rod  has  to 
have  £1000  a  year  to  wear  a  picturesque  costume 
and  carry  a  glorified  stick,  and  say  a  few  stage- 
words  ("  My  Lord,  the  carriage  waits  "),  on  these 
occasions.  Being  a  real  gentleman  and  a  thoroughly 
mediaeval  creation,  he  has  to  have  a  "  Yeoman  Usher 
of  the  Black  Rod  "  associated  with  him,  at  a  salary 
of  £400  a  year,  or  as  much  as  the  harassed  master 
of  a  large  secondary  school  gets.  And  the  Lords, 
who  now  discharge  no  function,  since  we  have  been 
compelled  to  take  away  from  them  their  one  function 
of  seeing  that  the  country  is  not  improved  too 
rapidly,  have  to  have  a  separate  palace,  and  a 
separate  Speaker  and  Deputy-Speaker,  at  a  cost  of 
£6500  a  year.  I  omit  the  inevitable  swarm  of  lesser 
officials. 

These  people  have  to  earn  their  living,  and  the 
new  member,  who  has  just  sworn  to  a  few  thousand 
innocent  folk  that  he  is  off  to  London  to  make  their 
voice  heard  in  the  cause  of  efficiency,  economy  and 
common  sense,  is  reduced  to  silence  at  once  by  their 
stately  and  elaborate  ways.  It  is  the  opening  of 
Parliament,  let  us  say,  and  the  Lords  and  Commons 
have  assembled,  when  the  day  is  half  over  (the 
lawyers  might  not  be  able  to  get  there  earlier),  in 
their  respective  chambers.  Gentleman  Usher  of  the 
Black  Rod  makes  an  impressive  entry,  save  for  a  few 
smiles  on  the  Labour  benches,  and  summons  the 
Commoners  to  the  higher  sphere.  There  they  are 
told — the  tone  is  that  of  Dombey  talking  to  Mrs 
Richards — to  elect  a  Speaker  and  bring  him  on  the 
morrow  for  approval.  There  being  as  yet  no 
Speaker,  the  Clerk  (who  must  on  no  account  speak) 
acts  the  part  of  a  dumb  chairman,  to  let  them  get 
through  the  business.  Then  the  day's  work  is  over, 
and  they  disperse  to  dinner. 

Not  being  expected  to  arise  early  after  so  labori- 


IN  THE  PARLIAMENTARY  LABYRINTH    247 

ous  a  day,  they  assemble  at  two  on  the  following 
day,  and  the  fancy-dress  ball  is  continued.  Black 
Rod  respectfully  intimates  to  the  Lords  that  "  His 
Majesty's  Faithful  Commons  "  (several  score  of  whom 
are  Republicans)  have  done  as  they  were  told,  and 
their  Speaker  "  submits  himself  with  all  humility  to 
His  Majesty's  gracious  approbation";  which  he 
gets.  Then  they  spend  a  few  days  in  taking  oaths 
and  examining  papers  and  so  forth.  Then  there  is 
another  humble  procession  to  the  Lords  to  hear  the 
King's  Speech,  or  the  oligarch's  immediate  program, 
and  two  of  the  worst  speakers  in  the  House  are 
chosen  (on  peculiar  principles)  to  talk  platitudes 
about  it,  and  the  Commons  read  a  dummy  Bill, 
which  is  supposed  to  be  a  defiant  commemoration 
of  some  spirit  of  independence  which  they  had  in 
ancient  times. 

"  Without  the  historic  sense,"  says  Sir  T.  Erskine 
May,  all  this  is  "  a  bewildering  jungle  ";  and  very 
few  of  the  seven  hundred  members  to-day  have 
sufficient  historic  sense  to  write  two  hundred  words 
on  the  strange  evolution  of  Parliament  after  the 
Civil  War.  Very  few  of  them  complain,  however. 
The  atmosphere  is  that  of  a  highly  ritualistic  church, 
providing  its  own  narcotic.  Even  robust  Radicals 
succumb  in  time.  Probably  Mr  Lloyd  George  would 
resent  a  suggestion  of  change  as  much  as  Mr  Cham- 
berlain would  have  done  in  his  later  years.  The 
business  of  the  House  is  not  going  to  be  conducted 
on  twentieth-century  lines,  and  the  neophyte  might 
as  well  realise  it  at  once.  What  does  it  matter  ? 
The  "  organs  of  public  opinion  "  describe  the  show 
annually  in  terms  of  respect,  if  not  of  exaltation,  so 
we  need  not  bother. 

The  House  then  proceeds  to  business,  in  its  own 
way.  There  are  not  seats  for  everybody — a  defect 
which  any  Borough  Council  would  remedy  in  three 
months — so  there  is  a  scramble  for  seats,  and,  at 


248  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

the  risk  of  being  counted  a  Vandal,  you  have  to 
learn  an  ingenious  set  of  rules  in  the  use  of  hats, 
cards,  etc.,  and  the  geographical  distribution  of  the 
House  into  party-areas  and  important  and  unim- 
portant benches.  As  you  are  now  only  a  voting 
automaton,  it  matters  little.  You  leave  to  heroic 
or  ambitious  or  abnormal  souls  the  privilege  of  occu- 
pying the  benches  and  linger  within  call.  Five 
hours  listening  to  ordinary  debates  in  the  peculiar 
atmosphere  of  the  House  of  Commons  (in  spite  of 
its  famous  physical  machinery  for  comfort)  is  poorly 
paid  at  £400  a  year,  you  conclude.  You  cannot 
catch  the  Speaker's  eye  in  connection  with  any  sub- 
ject of  importance.  I  have  known  one  of  the  ablest 
private  members,  and  an  authority  on  the  subject, 
fail  to  do  so  in  a  three  nights'  debate.  You  are 
food  for  divisions,  cannon-fodder  in  the  great  party- 
struggle.  For  this  a  long  experience  of  municipal 
councils,  in  which  you  could  say  what  you  thought, 
is  supposed  to  have  prepared  you. 

The  hours  of  work  of  the  House  of  Commons 
symbolise  and  sustain  its  determination  to  be  unlike 
any  other  place  of  business  in  the  world.  In  this 
respect  the  House  is  not  guided  by  that  reverence 
for  the  antique  and  archaic  which  accounts  for  a 
good  deal  of  its  extraordinary  proceedings.  The 
lateness  of  the  hour  of  opening  is  a  comparatively 
modern  development.  Before  the  Civil  War,  when 
men  were  sent  to  Westminster  only  to  do  certain 
national  business,  as  far  as  the  king  would  permit 
them,  the  House  met  at  six  in  the  morning.  Under 
Cromwell  it  was  wisely  decided  that  prayers  should 
be  fixed  at  eight  in  the  morning,  and  any  member 
who  did  not  appear  at  eight,  or  soon  afterwards, 
was  fined.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  prescribed  that 
the  deliberations  should  generally  cease  at  noon. 
Night  sittings  were  forbidden  on  the  excellent  maxim 
that  "  a  grave  and  sober  council  ought  not  to  do 


IN  THE  PARLIAMENTARY  LABYRINTH    249 

things  in  the  dark."  This  Puritan  feeling  was  so 
strong  that  the  sight  of  candles  in  the  House,  when 
some  serious  debate  was  prolonged,  aroused  great 
hostility.  Several  resolutions  of  the  House  were  an- 
nulled because  they  had  been  passed  by  candlelight. 
Dinner  was  early  in  those  days,  and  substantial. 
It  was  not  deemed  advisable  to  give  after-dinner 
hours  to  the  nation's  business  when  no  prudent 
merchant  would  think  them  fit  for  his  private 
business. 

After  the  Restoration  of  the  Stuarts  there  was  a 
good  deal  of  laxity.     Fines  for  not   appearing  at 
eight  were  discontinued,  and  the  hour  crept  slowly 
backward  over  the  day.     At  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth   century   the    House    rarely   met    before 
noon,   and  it   discharged   most   of  its  business   by 
candlelight.     There  were  many  reasons  for  this  be- 
sides laziness.    One,  undoubtedly,  was  the  spread  of 
drunkenness  in  all  classes.    There  were  few  members 
of  the  House  who  did  not  get  drunk  at  night,  as 
every  gentleman  of  liberal  habits  was  supposed  to 
do,  and  they  were  little  disposed  for  business  on  the 
following  morning.    The  proportion  of  business-men 
in  the  House  was  small.    They  were  mostly  landed 
gentry,  the  parasites  of  the  rich,  and,  later,  retired 
merchants.     The  evening,  when  the  drinker  enjoys 
his  most  lucid  hours,  was  chosen;    and  the  debates 
often  ran  until  cock-crow  hi  the  morning.    Another 
reason  was  that  the  proceedings  changed  somewhat 
in  character.    The  party-fight  was  in  full  blast,  and 
Parliament  was  a  "  career  "  for  young  men  of  wealth 
and  leisure  who  had  left  Oxford  or  Cambridge  and 
done  the  grand  tour  of  Europe.    The  House  became, 
as  Pitt  boasted,  the  most  famous  arena  of  eloquence 
and  wit  in  Europe.     The  evening  was  the  natural 
time  for  this.    Parliament  had  ceased  to  be  a  place 
of  business,  and  need  not  observe  business-hours. 
It  was  a  "  talking-shop."    Every  orator  knows  that 


250  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

the  best  time  for  orating  is  after  six  in  the  evening. 

In  the  reform-period,  1832,  a  rule  was  passed  that 
the  House  should  close  at  midnight.  The  spectacle 
of  legislators  strolling  home  to  bed,  often  in  a  state 
of  exaltation  which  might  be  misconstrued,  when 
plain  men  were  going  to  work,  was  not  edifying. 
It  is  also  true  that  much  wine  was  consumed  during 
all-night  sittings.  The  House  itself  was  startled  one 
night  by  an  honourable  member  calling  thickly  upon 
the  Speaker  to  oblige  with  a  song. 

But  already  a  new  development  had  set  in,  which 
checked  any  tendency  to  revert  to  daylight-hours. 
Business-men  and  lawyers  were  entering  the  House 
in  increasing  numbers,  and  they  wanted  the  morning 
for  their  private  affairs.  The  lawyer-member  gener- 
ally aspires  to  become  a  professional  politician,  or 
at  least  to  have  the  way  smoothed  to  a  judgeship 
or  other  legal  dignity,  but  in  the  earlier  years  he 
must  keep  himself  by  legal  practice.  Our  national 
habits  might  have  been  created  for  his  convenience. 
We  close  judicial  business  at  the  early  hour  of  four, 
and  we  commence  national  business,  substantially, 
about  the  same  time.  We  give  five  hours  work  in 
the  law-courts,  so  that  a  healthy  and  ambitious 
man  may  still  be  able  to  do  four  hours'  political 
work  in  the  evening.  The  London  business-man  is 
similarly  consulted.  In  effect  he  has  until  four 
o'clock  to  see  to  his  private  affairs.  That  the  over- 
whelming majority  of  the  members  belong  to  the 
provinces,  and  must  leave  their  businesses  behind 
them,  does  not  seem  to  matter. 

For  all,  however,  there  is  the  crowning  privilege 
of  longer  holidays  than  any  man  engaged  in  private 
business  would  dare  to  take  or  grant.  On  the  aver- 
age our  politicians,  who  have  the  most  colossal  busi- 
ness in  the  world  on  their  shoulders,  work  five  or 
six  hours  a  day  for  170  days  out  of  the  365.  There 
is  no  other  class  of  workers  in  the  community  that 


IN  THE  PARLIAMENTARY  LABYRINTH    251 

has  such  holidays,  and  none  but  teachers  (whose 
hours  are  determined  by  the  needs  of  the  children) 
who  work  only  five  days  a  week.  The  theory  is  still, 
apparently,  that  the  member  of  Parliament  is  a 
gentleman,  or  a  person  who  is  not  supposed  to 
work  at  all,  but  generously  gives  a  portion  of  his 
legitimate  play-hours  that  the  country  may  benefit 
by  his  wisdom.  The  consequence  is  that,  as  in  the 
law-courts,  business  is  nearly  always  in  arrears.  As 
I  write,  in  the  winter  of  1919,  our  politicians  are 
taking  the  usual  prolonged  holiday,  yet  leaving  be- 
hind them  a  mass  of  untouched  or  unfinished  work 
which  was  supposed  to  have  been  done  in  the  last 
session.  Of  the  work  which  was  displayed  as  a  pro- 
gram before  the  eyes  of  the  country  a  year  ago  very 
little  has  been  done. 

One  must  recognise,  of  course,  that  a  few  of  the 
leading  statesmen  have  very  heavy  work.  Few  men 
in  private  business  have  anything  like  their  hours  of 
employment  or  the  intensity  of  the  task  while  it 
lasts.  It  is  unfortunate  that  in  their  case  the  burden 
of  the  nation's  work  should  be  complicated  by  the 
thousand  and  one  tasks  and  anxieties  which  they 
have  simutaneously  to  face  as  party-leaders,  but  in 
any  event  no  man  who  knows  anything  of  the  daily 
round  of  a  conscientious  Prime  Minister  or  leading 
cabinet-minister  will  grudge  them  their  holidays  or 
their  salaries.  One  is  almost  tempted  to  suggest 
that  it  would  be  wiser  to  abolish  the  sinecures  and 
decorative  offices  which  still  burden  the  Civil  List, 
and  make  the  leading  positions  in  the  national  ad- 
ministration attractive  to  the  finest  talent  that  the 
nation  produces.  To  do  so  at  present,  when  a  score 
of  other  considerations  than  competency  account  for 
the  rise  of  stars  on  the  political  horizon,  would  be 
useless ;  but  meantime  we  may  recognise  that  those 
who  occupy  the  highest  positions  in  the  House  of 
Commons  lead  strenuous  and  unenviable  lives. 


252  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

This  applies  to  few.  Quite  apart  from  special 
committees,  which  need  not  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion, the  life  of  a  member  of  Parliament  is  one  of 
such  abundant  leisure  that  he  is  able  to  add  materi- 
ally to  his  income.  The  House  has  not  the  slightest 
intention  of  re-adjusting  its  ways  to  the  important 
new  departure  of  voting  itself  salaries.  But  in  this 
respect  English  custom  generally  is  so  crude  and 
primitive  that  there  is  little  hope  of  reform.  The 
idea  is  still  general  that  public  work  is  best  per- 
formed when  it  is  least  paid.  One  may  be  quite 
conscious  of  the  danger  which  the  contrary  tendency 
involves,  yet  decline  to  assent  to  this  curious  maxim. 

To  return,  however,  to  our  main  point.  The 
northern  worker,  let  us  say,  who  has,  in  a  frenzy  of 
enthusiasm,  been  sent  by  his  fellow- workers  to  help 
to  reform  the  ways  of  Westminster,  soon  finds  that  he 
is  quite  powerless.  He  learns  a  lot  of  minute  rules 
about  when  to  sit  and  when  to  stand,  when  to  wear 
a  hat  and  when  not  to  wear  a  hat,  and  so  on,  but 
as  a  rule  he  finds  no  occasion  even  for  these.  His 
duty  is  to  appear  for  a  division  and  enter  the 
lobby  which  his  party-allegiance  prescribes.  If  his 
conscience  impels  him  at  any  time  to  dissent  from 
the  decisions  of  his  leaders,  he  has  to  face  a  grave 
anxiety  about  his  seat.  The  caucus  gets  to  work. 
Telegrams  pass  from  the  party-headquarters  in 
Westminster  to  the  local  party-representatives  in  his 
constituency,  and  back  to  him,  in  slightly  modified 
form,  at  the  House.  Is  he  a  Liberal  (or  Conserva- 
tive) or  is  he  not?  The  general  triumph  of  the 
party  is  so  much  more  important  to  the  country 
than  some  erratic  opinion  of  his  on  a  particular 
point.  If  he  succeeds  in  finding  quite  a  large  group 
of  his  colleagues  who  agree,  he  still  has  little  power. 
A  very  large  group  of  Conservatives  wished  at  one 
time  to  put  Mr  Balfour  on  the  shelf  for  his  philo- 
sophic doubts  about  Protection.  They  did  not  sue- 


IN  THE  PARLIAMENTARY  LABYRINTH    253 

ceed.  A  large  group  of  Liberals  tried  in  1919  to 
influence  Mr  Lloyd  George.  They  failed.  A  dis- 
solution would  be  a  graver  matter  to  them  than  to 
their  leaders. 

Still  more  pathetic  is  the  situation  of  the  man  who 
decides  that  he  will  risk  rejection,  or  not  put  up 
again,  at  the  next  election.  In  one  respect  the 
machinery  of  the  House  is  here  as  lax  as  it  is 
stringent  in  most  other  matters.  A  man  may  con- 
tinue to  sit  in  Parliament,  and  harass  the  Govern- 
ment and  its  business  in  a  hundred  ways,  when  he 
no  longer  represents  more  than  a  few  hundred  voters 
in  his  constituency.  By  an  ancient  rule  he  cannot 
resign.  The  House,  as  if  it  were  bent  on  doing 
nothing  as  ordinary  mortals  do,  insists  that  he  must 
go  through  the  form  of  applying  for  the  Chiltern 
Hundreds.  This,  however,  he  scarcely  ever  desires 
to  do.  The  whole  atmosphere  is  so  insincere  that 
he  takes  advantage  of  his  technical  position.  He 
has  been  elected  for  five  years.  He  conveniently 
overlooks  the  fact  that  he  was  really  elected  to 
represent  ten  thousand  voters  for  five  years.  The 
time  may  come  when  he  will  have  abundant  evidence 
that  he  no  longer  represents  more  than  a  tenth  of 
these,  but  is  uttering  sentiments  daily  which  the 
other  nine-tenths  regard  as  gravely  detrimental  to 
the  country's  interests.  The  House  cares  nothing 
for  constituencies  between  elections.  It  will  pro- 
vide no  machinery  by  which  a  constituency  may 
afford  proof  that  a  man  no  longer  represents  it,  and 
may  cancel  his  mandate.  So  the  fortunate  rebel 
may  continue  for  years  to  harass  public  depart- 
ments for  fantastic  figures,  and  waste  the  time  of 
the  House,  on  the  strength  of  his  personal,  and 
perhaps  eccentric,  convictions. 

But  even  the  man  who  has  the  sympathy  of  his 
constituents  in  his  rebellion  can  do  little.  A  few 
men  of  long  experience  of  the  House,  considerable 


254  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

wealth,  public  repute  and  journalistic  support,  may 
carry  on  a  very  effective  pin-pricking  campaign. 
The  answers  to  their  questions  may  seem  to  the 
public  satisfactory,  but  the  expert  knows  that  the 
shot  has  told  and  a  change  will  quietly  be  effected. 
Such  men  are  the  salt  of  the  House.  As  a  rule,  the 
man  who  goes  to  the  House  for  the  purpose  of 
ruffling  its  complacency,  or  presently  feels  impelled 
to  ruffle  its  complacency  and  abandon  the  hope  of 
re-election,  runs  an  obstacle-race  which  soon  wears 
out  his  patience.  He  may  disappear,  like  Victor 
Grayson  or  George  Lansbury,  in  a  storm  that  does 
little  more  than  disturb  his  neighbours  for  an  even- 
ing. He  may  remain  a  futile  centre  of  irritability, 
like  Mr  Belloc  or  Mr  Ginnell,  for  a  few  years.  He 
may  develop  a  curious  sense  of  humour  and  expend 
his  zeal  in  facetious  interruptions  and  things  which 
he  regards  as  bons  mots;  which  is  silly.  He  makes 
no  substantial  impression  on  the  traditions  of  the 
House  or  the  deliberately  traced  program  of  its 
leaders.  He  feels  at  times  that  it  would  be  more 
economical  for  the  country  once  in  five  years,  or 
less,  to  invite  the  rival  groups  of  oligarchs  to  lay 
their  respective  programs  of  legislation  before  it  and 
simply  endorse  one  or  the  other.  It  would  save  a 
good  million  a  year.  An  extensive  biography  of 
any  leading  British  statesman  will  show  how  very 
rarely  the  Cabinet  policy  was  deflected  by  pressure 
from  amongst  its  own  supporters. 

The  average  member  wearily  succumbs  to  this 
regime  and  becomes  a  good  subject  of  the  oligarchs. 
He  no  longer  indulges  at  table  in  insurgent  remarks 
which  will  be  reported  to  the  Whip.  He  finds  him- 
self provided  with  a  club  refined  and  luxurious  be- 
yond the  dreams  of  Muddleton  or  Dudbridge,  in 
which  his  life  had  hitherto  been  cast.  He  has,  at 
relatively  small  cost,  a  second  luxurious  club  and 
genial  society  at  the  National  Liberal  Club  or  its 


IN  THE  PARLIAMENTARY  LABYRINTH    255 

rivals.  If  he  have  a  mind  for  study — it  is  not  un- 
known— a  superb  library  is  open  to  him.  The  party 
provides  other  pleasant  functions  for  the  faithful; 
and  he  may  even,  on  occasion,  walk  the  lawn  at 
Buckingham  Palace  and  hobnob,  or  very  nearly, 
with  all  the  talent  and  splendour  of  England.  If 
he  needs  more  money,  there  are  new  ways  of  making 
it.  The  magic  letters  after  his  name  will  secure  five 
guineas  for  an  article  in  a  journal  which  would  other- 
wise not  trouble  to  read  his  copy,  and  from  three 
to  ten  guineas  for  a  lecture  or,  if  he  is  willing  to 
profess  at  least  a  rudimentary  religion,  an  address. 
The  Labour  member  who  to-day  complains  bitterly 
that  <£400  a  year  is  not  a  living  wage — for  170  days' 
work  a  year — need  not  expect  serious  sympathy 
outside  those  Labour  circles  in  which  the  accent  of 
grievances  is  more  considered  than  the  substance. 
Any  observant  person  will  conclude  that  the  income 
of  several  of  them,  apart  from  office-holders,  is 
nearer  £1000  a  year. 

By  the  time  when  dissolution  is  at  length  actually 
decreed,  the  average  member  is  a  wiser  but  not  a  sad- 
der man.  He  very  strongly  desires  re-election.  The 
early  days,  in  which  he  declared  that  it  was  almost 
impossible  to  be  honest  at  Westminster,  or  in  which 
he  disrespectfully  translated  the  word  Parliament, 
"  talking-shop,"  are  forgotten.  He  has  developed 
"  the  historic  sense,"  though  he  may  have  learned 
little  history.  He  will  tolerate  the  next  opening  of 
Parliament  with  equanimity.  The  tediousness  of  its 
debates  he  now  knows  how  to  beguile  or  avoid.  He 
may,  in  fact,  claim  that  the  modern  substitution 
of  four  or  five  humdrum  speeches  of  three-quarters 
of  an  hour  each,  by  the  leading  representatives  of 
four  or  five  parties  or  sections,  is  an  advance  upon 
the  two  finished  orations,  sparkling  with  fine  lines 
from  the  classics,  which  once  filled  up  an  evening 
of  the  House's  time.  He  enjoys  the  puns,  person- 


256  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

alities  and  puerilities  which  a  new  generation  sub- 
stitutes for  the  sonorous  verse  of  Homer  or  the 
pregnant  sentiments  of  JSschylus. 

He  will  serve  for  another  five  years.  As  far  as 
his  means  permit,  he  plays  for  "  popularity,"  with 
a  Stoic  indifference  to  votes,  in  his  constituency.  He 
rescues  dying  football-clubs,  addresses  the  P.S.A. 
or  Brotherhood  or  whatever  a  layman  may  address 
with  fine  impartiality,  and  shows  a  laudable  concern 
for  every  comfortable  citizen's  duty  of  benevolence. 
He  takes  care  to  stand  well  with  the  local  section 
of  the  national  machine,  and  produces  a  record  of 
fidelity  and  industry  in  the  division-lobby.  West- 
minster approves  of  him,  and  the  ambitious  indi- 
vidual who  thought  of  supplanting  him  may  retire 
into  his  obscurity.  He  reflects  what  a  mighty 
difference  it  makes  to  a  man  to  stand  well,  or  stand 
ill,  with  the  party-machine.  Individualism,  he  com- 
fortably concludes,  is  an  heroic  policy,  but  after 
all  it  is  futile.  England  is  going  to  be  ruled  by  a 
party.  Only  a  party  can  do  things  in  England. 
Practical  wisdom  is  to  see  that  it  be  the  right  party 
— his  party.  So  he  reports  his  financial  needs,  and 
returns  to  Westminster  under  the  most  peculiarly 
sacred  of  all  obligations  to  the  party. 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE   OUTLOOK 

FEW  thoughtful  persons  will  dissent  from  the  sug- 
gestion that  the  outlook  for  Britain  is  discouraging 
if  the  system  I  have  described  is  to  continue.  A 
high  proportion  of  our  voters  are  influenced  by  more 
or  less  mercenary  considerations  which  candidates 
for  Parliament  are  still  allowed  to  dangle  before 
them.  A  still  higher  proportion  are  quite  incapable 
of  a  judicious  decision  unless  the  issues  are  put  be- 
fore them  in  the  simplest  and  clearest  terms;  and 
we  still  permit  our  day  of  decision,  once  in  five  years, 
to  be  preceded  by  a  national  orgie  of  sentimentality, 
mendacity,  vulgarity  and  personalities  which  must 
leave  any  but  the  strongest  and  best-educated  minds 
in  a  state  bordering  on  inebriation.  A  further  pro- 
portion would  choose  men  and  women,  after  grave 
and  quiet  examination  of  their  opinions,  whom  they 
regard  as  useful  persons  to  deliberate  on  our  great 
national  issues;  but  they  find  that,  in  effect,  they 
must  choose  one  of  the  two  individuals  imposed  on 
them  by  the  rival  parties,  or  the  candidates  of  the 
three  rival  parties,  who  will  not  be  permitted  to 
exercise  any  individuality  at  all. 

It  means,  in  short,  that  the  country  must  choose 
between  one  of  two  rival  groups  of  oligarchs.  Now 
these  generally  include  one  or  two  men  of  conspicu- 
ous ability,  and  the  great  mass  of  the  electors  see  a 
simple  way  out  of  the  maze  in  recognising  this  fact 
and  voting  for  a  particular  man  who  is  sure  to  assume 
power  if  his  followers  are  in  the  majority.  This 
n  257 


258  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

is,  in  fact,  the  best  that  can  be  said  for  our  present 
system.  Our  Premier  is  not  very  far  removed  from 
an  autocrat.  If  colleagues  in  the  Cabinet  dissent, 
in  spite  of  the  utmost  prudence  hi  selecting  them, 
he  can  generally  overrule  or,  hi  an  extremity,  dis- 
pense with  them.  I  say  "  not  very  far  removed  from 
an  autocrat,"  because  our  political  history  records 
many  instances  to  the  contrary.  There  have  been 
extreme  cases  in  which  the  Premier  could  not  with- 
out absurdity  be  described  as  an  autocrat.  Take 
Lord  Rosebery  or,  at  one  time,  Mr  Balfour.  Or 
consider  the  humour  of  describing  a  good-natured 
mediocrity  like  Mr  Campbell-Bannerman  as  an  auto- 
crat. Yet,  as  a  rule,  a  Premier  chooses  men  who 
will  co-operate  in  his  plans  and  contrives  to  make 
them  see  that  his  plans  are  just.  In  quite  recent 
years  we  have  seen  cabinet-ministers,  who  were  well 
known  in  informed  political  circles  to  oppose  a  cer- 
tain measure  violently,  remain  in  the  Cabinet  when 
it  was  passed.  So  we  simplify  the  complexity  forced 
on  us  by  choosing  something  hi  the  nature  of  an 
autocrat  to  administer  the  country  for  five  years. 
We  are  a  democracy  because  we  choose  him.  We 
genially  overlook  the  machinery  he  used,  we  flatter 
ourselves  that  we,  the  British  people,  calmly  selected 
him  to  direct  our  administration. 

But  here  the  limits  of  his  autocracy,  and  of  our 
choice,  begin.  If  there  are  any  persons  who  imagine 
that  our  autocrat  calmly  surveys  the  talent  of  the 
country,  when  the  king  has  recognised  our  will  and 
called  him  to  Buckingham  Palace,  and  selects  the 
most  skilful  and  experienced  men  to  take  charge  of 
the  public  departments,  it  is  only  one  more  proof 
of  the  scandalously  low  state  of  political  culture  in 
the  country.  In  point  of  fact,  there  are  millions  of 
voters  who  either  think  this  or  never  think  about 
the  matter  at  all,  though  it  is  a  point  of  vital  in- 
terest to  all  of  us.  We  have  seen  what  really  hap- 


THE   OUTLOOK  259 

pens.  Instead  of  surveying  the  national  talent,  he 
confines  his  scrutiny  to  a  small  group  of  thirty  or 
forty  professional  politicians  of  his  own  party;  and 
even  here  he  has  to  look  to  a  good  many  things 
besides  ability.  There  are  families  so  distinguished 
or  so  benevolent  that  even  if  the  son  who  has  entered 
politics  has  no  more  than  the  intelligence  of  the 
manager  of  a  suburban  bank,  "  something  must  be 
done  for  him."  He  may  even  become  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer,  at  a  time  when  it  needs  a  finan- 
cial genius  to  keep  it  solvent.  There  are  old  men, 
who  ought  to  have  retired  years  before,  but  who 
have  either  not  the  means  to  retire  on  or  not  the 
lucidity  to  see  that  their  period  of  use  is  over.  The 
mysteries  of  cabinet-making  are  notorious :  mys- 
teries, that  is  to  say,  in  the  literary  or  journalistic 
sense — things  that  you  could  elucidate,  but  would 
rather  not. 

The  secondary  offices  are  filled  in  turn  on  very 
complex  grounds  of  selection.  If  ministers  must 
have  unpaid  secretaries,  and  unpaid  secretaries  must 
be  men  distinguished  rather  by  the  ability  (or  for- 
tune) of  their  fathers  than  their  own,  there  has  to 
be  a  day  of  reward.  Politicians  rarely  trouble  their 
heads  about  science,  but  the  Eugenic  theory  of  our 
time  charmed  them.  Genius  runs  in  families,  so 
it  is  in  accord  with  the  highest  scientific  culture  to 
visit  the  virtues  of  the  fathers  on  their  children.  In 
point  of  fact,  a  careful  perusal  of  any  good  bio- 
graphical dictionary  will  show  that  genius  does  not 
run  in  families.  Any  person  who  cares  to  write  a 
list  of  the  thirty  ablest  men  of  the  last  generation — 
or  thirty  names  of  very  high  talent  may  be  written 
down  from  memory — and  then  write  the  names  of 
their  sons  in  a  corresponding  column,  will  not  need 
to  read  the  speculations  about  heredity  of  a  certain 
school  of  scientific  men.  Genius  runs  in  families 
only  in  the  political  world;  that  is  to  say,  in  all 


260  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

other  spheres  of  life  the  son  finds  his  natural  level, 
but  in  the  political  world  he  finds  it  comparatively 
easy  to  attain  the  positions  which  his  father  at- 
tained, whether  he  has  the  same  ability  or  only  one- 
fourth  of  it.  In  one  respect,  indeed,  the  politician 
outdoes  Sir  Francis  Galton.  He  thinks  political 
genius  is  communicated  by  marriage  into  one  of  the 
great  political  families. 

We  thus  find  that  we  have  chosen,  not  an  autocrat 
who  will  use  his  judgment  loyally  to  secure  the  finest 
talent  and  the  highest  energy,  but  a  set  of  political 
adventurers  who  will  put  their  hands  eagerly  to  jobs 
which  are  fit  only  for  supermen.  The  directive 
council  of  our  national  and  imperial  business  costs 
us  more  than  a  million  a  year;  if  we  include  the 
royal  family,  more  than  two  million  a  year.  But 
an  American  syndicate  would  not  tolerate  it  for 
three  months. 

The  situation  looks  worse  when  we  consider  how 
the  taint  spreads  downwards  through  the  depart- 
ments of  national  life  which  are  controlled  by  the 
Government.  It  is  so  notorious  that  the  loudest 
charge  against  "  State-socialism  "  for  fifty  years  has 
been  the  incompetence  of  the  State,  with  its  two- 
million-a-year  directive  council,  to  do  anything  as 
well  as  a  company  would  with  a  Board  of  Directors 
costing  from  .£5000  to  £10,000  a  year.  For  the  last 
two  hundred  years  politicians  have  weakened  the 
army  by  jobbery,  and  it  is  well  known  that  the 
jobbery  went  on  even  during  the  last,  and  most 
terrible,  war.  The  War  Office  became  the  paymaster 
of  politicians  whom  the  country  no  longer  wished  to 
see  in  the  limelight  of  the  House,  and  of  stuffy 
veterans  and  mediocre  officers  who  could  exert 
social  pressure  on  politicians.  The  abuse  became 
worse  after  the  Coalition,  because  there  were  now 
two  sets  of  politicians,  and  political  families,  and 
political  supporters,  to  be  consulted.  It  enfeebled 


THE   OUTLOOK  261 

the  army  in  the  field  as  well  as  the  army  in  London. 
Every  fresh  extension  meant  an  extension  of 
favouritism. 

This  pernicious  abuse,  which  is  plainly  an  exten- 
sion of  the  political  system,  enfeebled  every  depart- 
ment. I  asked  an  outside  expert  why  a  certain 
scientific  body  set  up  on  .Government  funds  worked 
so  slowly  and  unsuccessfully.  He  answered  that  the 
last  qualification  sought  in  the  scientific  workers  ap- 
pointed was,  apparently,  scientific  distinction.  Com- 
mittee after  committee  was  appointed  including 
one  or  two  names  which  caused  informed  persons 
to  raise  their  eyebrows.  Men  skipped  from  one  de- 
partment to  another  as  lightly  as  if  no  task  were 
too  intricate  to  be  mastered  in  a  month.  Local 
publicans,  of  military  age,  became,  under  local 
political  influence,  inspectors  of  guns  and  shells. 
I  have  seen  them  at  work.  It  was  the  same  right 
through  our  gigantic  national  machine.  Even  in 
normal  times  the  same  thing  goes  on.  Our  Civil 
Servants  are  the  most  pampered  and  most  leisurely 
and  extravagant  of  all  employees.  Parliament, 
next  door,  believes  in  short  hours  and  long  holidays. 
So  do  they.  They  are  not  "  in  business,"  thank 
you. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  situation  grows 
more  serious  every  decade.  For  a  hundred  years 
England  had  almost  a  commercial  monopoly,  and 
we  could  afford  to  let  politicians  direct  and  tamper 
with  the  great  departments  of  State.  Our  workers 
and  manufacturers  saw  to  it  that  the  State  pros- 
pered, in  spite  of  all  parasitism.  America  was  then 
a  remote  and  comparatively  small  agricultural 
polity.  Japan  lingered  in  the  Middle  Ages.  Ger- 
many did  not  seriously  develop  industrialism  before 
1871.  In  the  period  between  1871  and  1914  we 
still  prospered,  because  the  world-markets  were 
enormously  enlarged  and  there  was  trade  for  all. 


262  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

That  enlargement  will  not  continue,  and  the  com- 
mercial rivalry  will  be  intense  when  the  world  re- 
turns to  its  normal  life.  The  peoples  to  whom  we 
catered — take  India  or  South  America — begin  to 
manufacture  for  themselves.  The  caterers  grow 
more  numerous.  Japan  is  a  new  force.  The  United 
States  is  quietly  closing  America  against  the  rest 
of  the  world.  India  will  gradually,  as  it  is  indus- 
trialised, take  a  larger  interest  in  Africa  and  the 
near  East. 

Politics  has  had  to  expand  in  harmony  with  world- 
development.  In  the  days  when  Fox  and  Pitt  re- 
garded Parliament  as  a  stage  for  the  display  of  wit 
and  oratory  and  culture,  there  was  practically  only 
one  task  of  government — the  defence  of  the  country. 
Foreign  politics  and  finance  were  subsidiary  to  this. 
Parliament  was  not  burdened  with  work  except 
during  a  war.  The  House  was  the  club  and  debat- 
ing society  of  the  parties,  which  had  once  repre- 
sented opposed  principles  and  now  represented  rival 
syndicates.  The  members  were  nearly  all  men  who 
despised  "  trade,"  and  thought  the  qualifications 
of  a  business-man  odious.  How  could  one  quote 
Catullus  or  Aristophanes  to  such  people  ?  What  use 
could  be  made  of  a  brilliant  career  at  Oxford  in 
an  assembly  of  tradesmen  ? 

In  the  course  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  whole 
art  and  ideal  of  government  has  changed.  There  is 
hardly  an  aspect  of  the  life  of  the  citizens  which  it 
must  not  regard.  It  must  handle  and  judiciously 
distribute  £200,000,000  a  year,  or  manage  an  estate 
worth  ,£4,000,000,000.  Nay,  since  it  has  to  nurse 
the  prosperity  of  the  entire  kingdom,  beyond 
the  tenth  which  it  appropriates  in  taxes,  it  must 
take  thought  for  a  national  business  worth 
£10,000,000,000;  six  years  ago  one  would  have  said 
twice  that  sum,  but  debt  and  sterile  expenditure 
and  inflated  currency  have  reduced  us  so  low.  It 


THE   OUTLOOK  263 

has,  moreover,  to  expend  this  national  revenue  in 
ways  that  lay  beyond  the  dreams  of  Pitt  and  Al- 
thorp.  It  has  to  superintend  the  education  of  all 
the  children  of  the  country :  supervise  all  the  fac- 
tories and  workshops  in  the  country :  pension  all 
the  aged  workers  in  the  country :  manage  the  entire 
postal,  telegraphic  and  telephonic  service  of  the 
country  :  deal  with  all  the  crime,  poverty  and  lunacy 
and  some  other  forms  of  disease  in  the  country. 
It  has,  above  all,  to  see  that  the  wheels  of  the  in- 
dustrial machine  run  smoothly,  and  that  our  com- 
merce is  fully  instructed  and  scientifically  directed. 
It  has  to  do  this  in  face  of  rival  national  firms 
which  go  even  beyond  this  paternal  method : 
nations  of  which  the  government  condescends  to 
subsidise  particular  industries  and  gathers  informa- 
tion all  over  the  world  for  commerce. 

The  task  is  now  stupendous,  intricate  and  most 
momentous  in  its  consequences.  We  make  it  vaster 
and  more  costly  every  year.  With  a  light  hand  we 
throw  out  ten  or  twenty  millions  for  house-builders, 
or  railway-workers,  or  farmers,  or  purveyors  of 
food;  and  we  scarcely  notice  that  ten  mouths  will 
soon  gape  at  the  surface  of  the  pond  for  every  one 
we  satiate,  or  else  that  we  are  extending  our  political 
economy  in  new  directions.  Politics  is  now  a  busi- 
ness, not  in  the  old  political  sense,  but  hi  the  gravest 
economic  sense.  It  will  be  a  source  of  still  graver 
anxiety  presently.  Commercial  competition  abroad 
and  industrial  exactions  at  home  will  lower  our 
financial  vitality,  and,  in  proportion  as  it  is  lowered, 
there  will  be  louder  and  louder  calls  upon  the  public 
Exchequer. 

Yet  in  the  face  of  all  this  new  development  our 
politicians  cling  to  archaic  methods  and  stoutly 
support  our  wasteful  party-game.  They  must  meet 
at  an  hour  when  most  of  us  are  beginning  to  look 
at  the  clock.  They  must  pay  a  man  4400  a  year 


264  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

to  read,  less  than  two  hundred  times  a  year,  a  prayer 
to  which  no  one  but  Lord  Hugh  Cecil  attaches  the 
slightest  importance.  They  must  maintain  a  pro- 
cedure so  complex  and  mysterious  and  irrational 
that  they  must  pay  men  £20,000  a  year  to  see  that 
it  is  carried  out  properly.  They  must  suffer  a  similar 
House  next  door,  which  they  declare  to  be  useless, 
to  be  put  on  the  estimates,  and  pay  a  series  of 
ornamental  gentlemen  to  do  the  work  of  an  occa- 
sional messenger-girl  between  them.  They  must 
find  excuses  for  a  party-system  which  they  them- 
selves declare  to  be  so  detrimental  to  public  busi- 
ness that  it  would  be  unsafe  to  lean  on  it  in  a  critical 
period.  They  must  retain  a  method  of  discharging 
their  functions,  by  formal  debates  which  make  plain 
what  everybody  knew,  and  suppress  the  men  who 
might  contribute  something  new,  which  no  other 
executive  council  in  the  land  would  imitate.  They 
must  keep  up  the  fiction  that  the  House  is  a  place 
of  oratory,  though  the  art  of  oratory  is  dead,  and 
the  occasion  of  oratory  is  gone  for  ever.  And  they 
do  this  because  it  is  in  the  interest  of  the  party- 
game,  since  every  speech  is  really  addressed  to  the 
prospective  voters  and  never  influences  the  hard- 
cased  audience  in  the  House. 

This  sort  of  thing  will  not  sustain  Britain  in  the 
coming  contest.  There  are  those  who  shudder,  and 
make  wry  faces,  when  you  talk  of  coming  contests. 
Have  we  not  had  enough  of  them  ?  It  does  not 
matter  whether  we  have  or  not.  We  are  entering 
upon  two  new  contests  as  grave  as  any  we  ever 
engaged  in  before :  the  industrial  contest  at  home 
and  the  commercial  contest  abroad,  the  struggle  for 
production  at  home  and  the  struggle  for  distribution 
abroad,  the  fight,  not  merely  for  life,  but  for  a 
greater  life.  There  is  no  mistaking  the  signs  of  the 
times.  The  millions  who  were  once  content  to  wait 
for  their  luxuries  in  the  next  world  are  determined, 


THE   OUTLOOK  265 

for  greater  security,  to  have  them  in  this.  Our 
economy  is  going  to  be  either  transformed  or  ruined. 
Statesmanship  can  transform  it.  Politicians  are 
merely  putting  back  the  hour  of  reckoning  Iw 
clipping  the  coinage.  What  is  likely  to  happen?  y^ 

The  Labour  Party  is  the  hope  of  many.  We  will  * 
not  at  once  be  prejudiced  because  it  calls  itself  a 
"  party,"  and  it  is  the  party-system  which  threatens 
England  with  ruin.  Like  every  other  party,  of 
course,  it  seeks  its  own  interests.  There  is,  how- 
ever, this  difference  :  its  interests  mean  the  interests 
of  nine-tenths  of  the  community.  Pitt  and  Well- 
ington said  candidly  that  Parliament  existed  to 
protect  property ;  which  at  that  time  meant  far  less 
than  a  tenth  of  the  community.  Six  years  ago  pro- 
perty-holders— down  to  the  lowest  section  of  the 
middle  class — were  about  a  ninth  of  the  community. 
To-day,  if  we  regard  the  latest  figures  of  income- 
tax,  they  number  about  an  eighth.  It  is  difficult 
to  calculate,  for  many  a  worker  to-day  earns  as 
much  as  an  author  or  a  university  professor,  and 
whole  classes  of  workers  get  as  much  as  school- 
masters. But  let  us  say  that  Labour,  in  the  nar- 
rower sense,  represents  seven-eighths  of  the  nation, 
and  would  theoretically  promote  the  interests  of  the 
seven-eighths. 

What  we  want  to  know,  however,  is  whether  a 
Labour  Party  is  likely  to  purify  the  administration 
of  its  hampering  defects  or  to  maintain  the  worse 
features  of  the  party-system.  We  need  not  theorise 
about  political  development.  It  is  taking  place  all 
over  the  earth,  and,  as  it  has  in  some  countries  out- 
run the  stage  in  which  we  linger,  we  have  only  to 
turn  to  them  for  enlightenment.  Try  Australia  and 
New  Zealand.  There  one  sees  the  next  phase. 
Liberals  and  Conservatives  have  fallen  upon  each 
others'  necks  and  formed  "  national "  parties  of 
opposition.  Labour  is  in  power.  Socialism  slowly 


266  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

advances,  and,  as  every  one  who  knows  Australia 
has  found,  it  pronounces  Labour  a  misbirth  from  the 
womb  of  time,  a  sham  and  a  snare  for  the  workers. 
The  party-system  thrives  as  luxuriantly  and  mis- 
chievously as  here.  Australian  Socialists  leave  it 
to  English  Socialists  (except  when  they  are  ex- 
pressly called  to  help)  to  bless  the  so-called  "  Soci- 
alistic "  triumphs  of  the  Labour  Governments  of 
Australia.  They  talk  of  "  the  official  Labour 
Party  "  much  as  our  Socialists  speak  of  the  bour- 
geoisie (which  must  be  kept  in  French,  or  else  it 
loses  its  blood-curdling  quality  and  sounds  quite 
harmless). 

Now,  are  we  tending  to  the  same  consummation  ? 
Certainly.  Labour  was  routed  at  the  last  election 
because  the  country  decidedly  preferred  Mr  Lloyd 
George  to  Mr  Henderson  and  Mr  Macdonald.  But 
no  other  election  will  be  fought  in  the  same  cir- 
cumstances, and  the  Labour-tide  will  steadily  rise, 
It  rises  at  every  bye-election.  If  the  general  elec- 
tion could  be  deferred  for  another  two  years,  one 
would  not  be  surprised  to  see  a  hundred  and  fifty  or 
more  Labour  members ;  and  the  rise  of  the  tide  will 
continue.  Does  it  promise  a  solution? 

Let  us  examine  the  political  organisation  of 
Labour.  Its  inevitable  aristocracy,  or  group  of 
leaders,  differs  materially  from  the  higher  groups  of 
the  other  parties.  There  are  (as  yet)  no  hereditary 
leaders.  There  are  no  men  included  because  their 
fathers  contributed  brain  or  money  to  the  party. 
Already,  however,  we  begin  to  ask  questions.  Are 
one  or  two  individuals,  who  are  plainly  not  horny- 
handed  sons  of  toil,  so  prominent  in  Labour  counsels 
because  they  are  really  credited  with  superior  poli- 
tical wisdom,  or  are  there,  even  here,  secret  sub- 
scription-lists ?  For  the  last  twenty  years  some 
needy  sections  of  the  Labour-world  have  been  not 
unfamiliar  with  secret  funds.  Here  are  two  pas- 


THE   OUTLOOK  267 

sages  from  the  work  of  a  political  veteran,  Howard 
Evans,  whose  word  commands  respect : 

"At  a  certain  general  election  two  obscure  Social- 
ist candidates  made  their  appearance  and  went  to 
the  poll.  I  had  information  that  their  election- 
expenses  were  paid  by  Tory  money,  and  published 
the  fact.  One  of  these  candidates  called  on  me, 
declaring  that  he  had  no  knowledge  of  the  matter 
till  afterwards,  but  he  admitted  that  my  statement 
was  true.  .  .  . 

"  There  was  another  man  who  had  been  closely 
connected  with  Karl  Marx  and  the  International. 
He  started  a  Labour  paper,  which  was  filled  from 
end  to  end  with  the  most  scurrilous  abuse  of  tried 
and  trusted  leaders  of  Trade  Unions.  How  the 
thing  lived  was  a  mystery  I  could  not  fathom, 
but  I  had  little  doubt  when  its  editor  was  ap- 
pointed to  an  important  post  in  the  Tory  electoral 
organisation."* 

The  first  of  these  instances,  and  several  like  it, 
are  now  well  known.  The  second  is  a  very  excep- 
tional case,  except  in  so  far  as  it  speaks  of  journals 
whose  survival  is  "  a  mystery  I  could  not  fathom/' 
The  Labour  Party,  especially  in  its  left  wing,  is 
very  eloquent  about  secret  funds  and  secret  dip- 
lomacy. It  is  not  conspicuous  for  the  virtues  which 
are  opposed  to  these  unhappy  vices. 

It  is,  however,  much  more  important  to  study 
the  main  organisation  of  the  political  Labour  Party. 
It  has  its  caucus,  its  central  committee,  its  local 
committees,  its  war-chest,  its  discipline  in  the  House 
and  organization  in  the  country,  its  rewards  of  loyalty 
and  service,  its  punishments  of  dissent.  It  is,  in 
other  words,  built,  with  certain  differences,  on  the 
model  of  the  older  parties.  It  imitates  their  machine. 
This,  it  says,  is  inevitable  and  harmless ;  and  certain 
*  Radical  Fights  of  Forty  Years  (1913),  p.  100. 


268  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

important  differences  must  be  conceded.  Its  slender 
war-chest  has  certainly  no  connection  with  the 
honours'  lists.  It  has  no  moneyed  and  leisured  young 
men  who  can  6  devil  '  to  the  elders  for  a  few  years  and 
look  for  a  reward.  Its  clubs  and  centres  of  cohesion 
are  quite  genuine  drinking  clubs  for  people  of  like 
politics,  not  bogus-affairs  financed  by  political 
patrons.  Five  million  men  have,  surely,  the  right 
to  create  an  organisation  for  the  more  effective 
representation  of  their  policy  in  Parliament. 

In ,  some  respects,  however,  the  Labour  Party 
shares  the  defects  of  its  predecessors.  It  was 
heavily  chastised  at  the  last  election  for,  amongst 
other  things,  the  unfitness  of  a  large  proportion  of 
its  candidates  to  inspire  confidence.  Had  the 
Labour  Party  issued  a  plain  and  detailed  program, 
and  said  to  the  nation :  "  These  men  are  merely 
required  at  Westminster  to  vote  this  program  in  the 
division-lobbies,"  it  would  have  diverted  attention 
from  the  candidates  and  their  (often  foolish)  local 
syllabuses ;  though  it  would  have  left  one  annoying 
side  of  parliamentary  life  where  it  is.  The  Labour 
Party  was  not  in  a  position  to  do  that.  One  sus- 
pected that  it  had  either  not  the  statesmanship  to 
frame  a  program  or  sufficient  domestic  harmony  to 
avow  it.  The  electors  therefore  patiently  listened 
to,  or  read,  the  candidates  who  appeared,  and  their 
confidence  was  not  secured.  A  man  who  had,  per- 
haps, spent  several  hours  of  his  leisure  every  week 
for  some  years  in  attending,  without  pay,  to  the 
small  affairs  of  the  local  branch  of  his  Trade  Union, 
was  rewarded  with  a  candidature  by  the  Labour 
headquarters.  One  may  admire  the  sentiment  of 
gratitude,  but  gravely  doubt  whether  experience  of 
the  somewhat  different  and  very  much  smaller 
affairs  of  a  branch  of  a  Trade  Union  fits  a  man  to 
decide  national  and  imperial  issues.  Another  can- 
didate, one  found,  was  judged  worthy  to  take  his 


THE   OUTLOOK  269 

place  in  our  legislature  because  he  had  proved  him- 
self remarkably  energetic  in  exciting  or  conducting 
strikes.  Another  was  a  born  legislator  because  his 
language  about  the  enemies  of  Labour  could  be 
heard ,  quarter  of  a  mile  away.  Another  had  to  be 
adopted  because  his  particular  section  of  the  Labour 
Party — say,  the  Independent  Labour  Party — was  en- 
titled to  so  many  seats,  and  chose  its  own  candidates. 

Into  these  categories  most  of  the  candidates  fell. 
Middle-class  men  of  Labour  sympathies  were  tried 
here  and  there,  and  they  were  generally  so  mangled 
that  their  proportion  is  not  likely  to  increase.  Most 
members  of  the  party  do  not  like  them — the  cake 
is  not  large  enough;  so  they  are  carpet-baggers,  or 
intruders  of  doubtful  loyalty.  The  choice  must  be 
confined  as  far  as  possible  to  genuine  wage- workers. 
This  clearly  means  a  lowering,  instead  of  an  uplift- 
ing, of  parliamentary  ability.  It  is,  of  course,  quite 
a  mistake  to  suppose  that  in  each  generation  that  is 
born  the  middle-class  represents  talent  and  the 
workers  lack  of  it.  There  has  been  far  too  much 
nonsense  talked  about  heredity.  The  middle-class 
is  the  class  which  inherits,  not  talent,  but  oppor- 
tunity. The  successful  father  is  able  to  give  a  finer 
edge  to  the  moderate  talent  of  his  son.  There  is  a 
vast  amount  of  stupidity  born  in  the  middle-class 
every  decade,  and  a  vast  amount  of  ability  born  in 
the  working-class  every  year.  But  the  tremendous 
conceit  of  their  class  which  many  workers  have  is 
ridiculous.  Most  of  the  cleverer  sons  of  workers, 
especially  in  our  age  of  scholarships  and  greater 
opportunities,  leave  their  fathers'  class  before  they 
are  thirty;  and  the  Labour  candidates  chosen  from 
the  branches  are  rarely  under  thirty.  This  means  that 
they  are  chosen  as  men  well  equipped  to  conduct 
the  gigantic  business  of  the  nation  when  their  very 
position  implies  that  they  have  not  business-ability. 

In  a  word,  like  the  older  Parties  the  Labour  Party 


270  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

has  to  consult  its  own  interests  as  an  organiscation. 
It  has  to  choose  men  for  administrative  purposes 
who  have  merely  shown  a  certain  talent  for  talking 
or  for  the  totally  different  business  of  organising 
strikes.  It  is  just  where  the  Athenian  democracy 
was  in  the  fourth  century  B.C.  It  is  rushing  toward 
the  pitfalls  which  political  theorists  have  always 
predicted  for  it.  Its  leaders,  as  a  body,  to-day  do 
not  inspire  confidence.  There  are  a  few  men  amongst 
them  who  have  proved  their  ability  and  have  fine 
character.  There  are  more  whom  one  cannot  with- 
out a  shudder  of  apprehension  imagine  in  control 
of  the  national  machinery.  Mediocre  as  our  actual 
ministry  is,  though  combining  the  talent  of  one  and 
a  half  parties,  who  would  care  to  see  it  replaced  by 
thirty  of  the  most  prominent  men  of.  our  actual 
Labour-world  ?  Which  would  be  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Minister  of 
Education,  or  Minister  of  Agriculture? 

One  has  the  same  anxiety  about  their  ideas.  Any 
man  who  closely  and  sympathetically  studies  the 
most  prominent  men  of  our  Labour  movement,  in 
the  belief  that  it  may  yet  come  to  power,  will  be 
apt  to  get  a  curious  impression  that  they  look  and 
talk  as  if  they  were  haunted:  Some  one  is  after 
them.  Some  one,  that  is  to  say,  is  after  their  place 
in  the  esteem  of  Demos;  and,  unhappily,  the 
economic  culture  of  Demos  is  so  low  that  he  has  a 
prodigious  belief  in  possibilities.  Promise  him  four 
or  five  hours'  work  a  day — "  in  a  properly  ordered 
state  of  society,"  of  course — and  he  believes  we 
could  all  live  like  retired  colonels  on  that.  Promise 
him  a  fortnight's  holiday  with  pay  eveiy  year,  and 
he  will  not  dream  of  doing  the  very  simple  sum  in 
arithmetic  which  is  required  to  show  that  this  would 
cost  ,£150,000,000  a  year.  Tell  him  that  all  educa- 
tion ought  to  be  free,  all  workers  liberally  pensioned 
at  sixty,  all  houses  provided  at  moderate  rent  for 


THE   OUTLOOK  271 

Workers  by  a  heavy  subsidy,  all  medical  treatment 
for  the  workers  unpaid,  and  so  on.  He  never  works 
out  the  cost.  He  has  a  vague  idea  that  abolishing 
the  idle  rich,  making  productive-workers  of  luxury- 
workers,  and  cutting  down  the  army  and  navy,  will 
provide  funds  about  a  hundred  times  greater  than 
such  changes  actually  involve.  Hardly  a  single 
Labour  leader  or  orator  dare  tell  the  simple  economic 
facts.  They  have  to  bid,  rhetorically,  higher  and 
higher.  There  is  another  man  ready  to  outbid 
them,  hi  rhetoric.  The  most  monstrous  exaggera- 
tions circulate.  Even  the  middle-class  supporters 
of  Labour  shrink  from  correcting  its  grave  errors. 

This  sort  of  thing  is  no  more  promising  at  present 
than  the  actual  system.  And  even  less  promising 
is  the  feminist  panacea  for  our  political  maladies. 
Any  discerning  person  could  have  foreseen  ten  years 
or  more  ago  that  the  long  and  foolish  resistance  of 
politicians  to  the  demand  for  the  suffrage  would 
have  grave  consequences.  Women  orators  soon  ex- 
hausted the  plain  reasons  why  they  should  have  the 
suffrage.  These  became  platitudes,  and,  as  meet- 
ings were  mainly  filled  and  paid  for  by  women  who 
had  heard  these  things  ever  since  they  had  put  their 
hair  up,  something  stronger  had  to  be  said.  Feminist 
orators  had  to  vie  with  each  other,  if  they  were  to 
remain  popular,  much  as  Labour-orators  do,  or  Mr 
Asquith  and  Mr  Lloyd  George  do.  It  was  suggested 
that  woman's  peculiar  gifts  would  be  a  distinct  and 
complementary  addition  to  man's  political  efforts. 
It  was  found  that  these  gifts  were,  if  you  studied 
them  properly,  far  superior  to  man's.  Great  scorn 
was  poured  on  "  the  smoke-dried  male  brain  "  (just 
when  women  were  beginning  in  large  numbers  to 
smoke),  and  the  despotism  of  the  male,  and  the 
male  pretension  to  legislate  for  women  and  bhildren, 
and  the  coarser  nature  of  the  male  which  led  to 
wars  and  dare  not  check  drink  and  prostitution  and 


272  THE   TAINT   IN   POLITICS 

syphilis,  and  so  on.  Figures  of  venereal  taint  were 
put  in  circulation  which  showed,  when  you  worked 
them  out,  that  fifty  per  cent,  of  our  legislators  must 
be  diseased. 

Apart  from  these  exaggerations,  these  natural 
reactions  on  the  obstinacy  of  the  male,  there  was, 
and  is,  a  very  widespread  idea  that  woman's  dis- 
tinctive gifts  would  tend  enormously  to  purify 
politics  when  she  reached  the  House  of  Commons. 
Science  and  philosophy  were  enlisted  by  young 
ladies  from  Girton.  Bergson  had  showu  that  sym- 
pathy or  intuition — woman's  great  quality,  of  course 
— was  the  real  source  of  all  superior  knowledge. 
Science  had  discovered  that  during  the  golden  age 
there  was  a  matriarchate.  Anyhow,  the  advent  of 
woman  into  politics  was,  and  is,  very  widely  re- 
garded as  the  beginning  of  the  end  of  political 
corruption. 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  discussing  this  at  any 
length.  The  question  of  woman's  supposed  power 
of  intuition  (which  only  exists  in  fiction)  is  more 
fitted  for  a  debate  at  Newnham.  The  only  gift  she 
brings  is  a  certain  charm  and  freshness  due  to  her 
long  abstention  from  politics.  It  has  faded  a  little 
in  the  last  ten  years.  Most  of  us  will  readily  admit 
that  she  could — that  a  large  number  of  women 
could — discharge  the  not  very  oppressive  functions 
of  our  actual  member  of  Parliament  as  well  as  the 
bulk  of  the  males  who  do  so,  and  thai  she  has  as 
much  right  as  man  to  aspire  to  it.  But  there  it 
ends.  She  must  enter  Parliament  as  a  citizen,  not 
as  a  woman.  There  is  very  rarely  a  question  before 
the  House  in  which  her  special  experience  counts 
for  anything,  and,  when  such  a  question  arises, 
women-experts  are  quite  easily  consulted.  Much 
has  been  made  of  the  famous  "  orange-boxes  "  which 
male  legislators  are  supposed  to  have  ordered  for 
babies.  Probably  a  House  of  women  would  have 


THE   OUTLOOK  273 

ordered  something  that  poor  women  could  not  afford, 
and  then  put  it  airily  on  the  estimates.  Let  us  not 
carry  the  sex- war  into  politics.  It  is  going  to  be 
bad  enough  in  the  home. 

With  all  respect  for  the  distinguished  and  earnest 
men  who  recommend  it,  I  do  not  see  that  propor- 
tional representation  would  help.  We  should  have 
strenuous  minority-campaigns  and  some  very  curi- 
ous combinations;  like  the  combination  of  Irish 
and  Radicals  which  seemed  so  revolting  to  John 
Bright,  or  the  combination  of  Socialists  and  Catho- 
lics which  at  present  -runs  Germany.  We  should 
have  an  election,  even  in  a  grave  and  complex 
period  like  this,  turning  on  a  single  and  fantastic 
issue  like  the  prevention  of  other  people  from  con- 
suming drinks  which  you  yourself  do  not  like.  Five 
million  American  dollars  would  supply  a  batch  of 
candidates  and  a  Columbian  electoral  machinery 
which  would  secure  a  sufficiently  large  group  of 
members  of  Parliament  to  make  a  deal  with  some 
party  in  the  House.  Such  fanatics  of  one  idea,  real 
monomaniacs,  will  sell  the  remaining  and  greater 
interests  of  the  country  at  any  time  to  purchase  the 
triumph  of  their  idea.  The  Irish  Brass  Band  has 
been  bad  enough.  Twenty  brass  bands  would  en- 
liven the  House  under  proportional  representation. 
The  more  advanced  women  would  return  a  score  of 
fanatics  of  their  school,  who  would  adopt  a  tactical 
moderation  in  the  election.  The  two  million  Roman 
Catholics  would  return  twenty  or  thirty  members 
who  would  make  any  deal  to  secure  an  exchange  of 
diplomatic  representatives  with  the  Vatican.  There 
would  be  an  Anti-Vivisectionist  group,  an  Anti- 
Gambling  group,  and  so  on.  The  substantial  in- 
terests of  the  country — what  these  people  disdain- 
fully call  its  "  material  "  interests — would  be  lost 
in  a  battle  of  sentimentalities.  The  liberty  of  the 
individual  citizen  would  be  restricted  by  a  crowd 


274,  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

of  semi-monastic  rules,  with  an  army  of  women- 
police  to  enforce  them. 

Some  reformer  once  suggested  that  we  ought  to 
set  up  a  cultural  standard  for  members  of  Parlia- 
ment and  make  every  candidate  pass  an  examina- 
tion in  history  and  economics.  It  is  certainly  desir- 
able to  have  a  higher  cultural  standard.  This  does 
not  mean  a  restriction  of  Labour-members,  many 
of  whom  know  far  more  about  history — the  social 
history  that  really  matters — and  economics  than 
most  of  their  Liberal  or  Conservative  colleagues  do. 
But  the  idea  has  little  chance  of  acceptance,  and  it 
would  not  carry  us  far  enough.  The  party-organisa- 
tion would  quite  easily  provide  a  number  of 
"  crammers "  who  would  speedily  put  its  candi- 
dates through  the  necessary  preparation.  It  would 
not  affect  the  party-system. 

"  Measures,  not  men,"  is  another  reform  con- 
densed into  a  phrase.  Probably  most  of  our  electors 
would  retort  that  it  is  precisely  the  policy  they 
adopt.  It  is  the  measures  suggested  on  the  candi- 
date's prospectus  that  interest  them.  His  person- 
ality is,  as  a  rule,  unknown  It  is  the  measures 
which  divide  Liberal  from  Tory,  hi  the  popular  view. 
The  phrase  is  too  vague.  One  might  put  some 
vitality  into  it  by  suggesting  that  the  measures 
placed  before  the  House  ought  to  be  severely  de- 
tached from  personalities  or  parties.  One  could  not 
prevent  the  author  of  a  measure  from  enjoying  his 
small  vanky,  or  a  party  which  proposed  a  measure 
from  parading  its  merit  before  the  electors;  but  if 
it  could  be  secured  that  measures  be  discussed  with- 
out involving  the  fall  of  the  ministry,  a  great  deal 
of  the  more  sinister  element  of  the  life  of  Parliament 
would  be  cut  at  the  root.  It  would  half  ruin  the 
party-game.  Shorter  Parliaments  would  counteract 
the  tendency  to  make  party-capital  out  of  such  an 
arrangement,  and  there  would  always  remain  the 


THE   OUTLOOK  275 

power  of  the  House  to  pass  a  direct  vote  of  censure 
on  a  ministry. 

This,  and  the  re-arrangement  of  the  debates  and 
re-adjustment  of  hours,  would  make  an  immense 
difference  without  any  heroic  or  revolutionary 
measures.  When  Parliament  works  at  least  seven 
hours  of  the  day  (not  day  and  night)  and  three  on 
Saturdays,  for  at  least  two  hundred  and  fifty  days 
a  year;  when  ministers  can  be  induced  to  be  con- 
tent with  short  speeches — they  could  almost  always 
convey  in  half  the  tune  what  they  have  to  say — 
and  any  member  who  has  positive  information  or 
suggestions  on  the  subject  is  perfectly  free  to  rise 
and  briefly  make  his  point;  when  facetious  and 
platitudinous  and  sectarian  speeches  are  deemed  to 
be  a  waste  of  the  country's  time;  when  half  the 
silly  rules  and  archaic  customs  are  recognised  as 
mediaeval  ash  clogging  the  fire  of  parliamentary 
life;  we  shall  have  made  a  long  step  toward  im- 
provement. As  things  are,  we  have  not  only  the 
danger  of  insufficient  attention  to  our  most  pressing 
national  needs,  but  we  have  a  minority  taking  ex- 
cuse from  the  obstinacy  of  Parliament  for  what  it 
calls  "direct  political  action"  This  minority  was 
bitterly  disappointed  at  the  last  election.  It  was 
deliberately  turned  down  by  the  nation.  It  fears 
it  will  have  little  better  fortune  at  the  next  election. 
So,  taking  a  pretext  from  the  taint  of  the  actual 
Parliament,  it  would  use  its  industrial  position  to 
coerce  the  majority.  The  weapon  is  as  crude  as  the 
policy  for  which  it  is  generally  used,  and  the  country 
is  in  danger  of  seeing  its  economy  ruined  for  decades 
unless  it  insists  on  the  purification  of  political  life. 

I  am  not  so  much  concerned  with  the  method  of 
purification  as  the  establishment  of  the  disease. 
Unhappily,  a  very  high  proportion  of  our  people 
do  not  in  the  least  realise  how  morbid  and  stupid 
and  mischievous  the  political  system  is.  The  edu- 


276  THE   TAINT   IN  POLITICS 

cation  we  give  them  is  almost  as  crude  and  perverse 
as  the  political  life  itself.  Teachers  begin  history 
at  the  time  of  the  Romans  in  Britain,  drag  the  poor 
children  through  the  appalling  morasses  of  Welsh 
wars  and  Danish  wars  and  Norman  wars,  and  so 
on,  and  are  just  on  the  threshold  of  the  section  of 
history  which  would  enable  them  to  give  children 
some  sense  of  citizenship  when  the  call  to  the  work- 
shop interrupts  then*  "  training."  Social  feeling 
they  communicate  to  the  children  by  the  medium 
of  childish  and  untrue  legends  about  the  uncivilised 
Hebrews  of  2500  years  ago,  or  the  parables  in  which 
Christ  conveyed  instruction  to  people  living  in  social 
conditions  as  remote  from  ours  as  can  be  imagined. 
Then,  under  a  vague  and  undiscriminating  idea  of 
"  preparing  children  for  industrial  and  commercial 
life,"  they  spend  long  hours  over  the  geography  of 
Arabia  and  Kurdistan,  or  the  varying  navigability 
of  the  rivers  of  Spain.  These  things  occupy  two- 
thirds  of  the  school-hours,  and  the  boy  or  girl  is 
turned  loose  at  fifteen  or  sixteen,  to  sow  his  or  her 
intellectual  wild  oats,  with  as  much  civic  sentiment 
as  a  young  Hindu.  Patriotism  and  religion,  our 
politicians  rule,  must  be  the  guiding  ideals,  It  is 
the  principle  imposed  upon  the  educationists  of 
Germany  by  the  ex-Emperor  in  1890. 

The  fundamental  need  is  education.  Our  people 
must  cease  to  smile  at  the  eccentricities  of  the  House, 
the  blatancies  of  elections:  and  the  unblushing 
effrontery  of  election-promises.  They  must  learn  to 
attach  more  importance  to  deeds  than  words.  They 
must  learn  to  demand  a  little,  simple,  ideally  lucid 
economic  annual,  which  at  the  beginning  of  each 
year  will  tell  them  what  wealth  we  really  have,  what 
wealth  we  could  have,  how  our  production  compares 
with  that  of  other  nations,  what  leaks  there  are  in 
our  distribution,  and  so  on.  Every  citizen  ought  to 
know  these  things  about  the  corporate  life  on  which 


THE   OUTLOOK  277 

the  individual  life  vitally  depends.  As  it  is,  one 
finds  oneself  regarded  as  quite  a  learned  person  for 
being  able  to  tell  these  things  from  memory,  From 
a  knowledge  of  these  elementary  economic  facts 
people  will  turn  critically  upon  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. Is  it  finding  the  remedy  of  our  present  griev- 
ous economic  maladies?  Is  it  flinging  out  vague 
promises  which  the  economic  situation  does  not 
justify?  Is  it  leading  us  away  from  the  financial 
precipice  it  announced  to  us  so  gravely  six  months 
ago?  Are  the  cheery  optimists  talking  on  the 
strength  of  a  serious  study  of  the  facts,  or  are  they, 
under  the  traditional  political  impression  that  the 
public  is  an  ass,  playing  the  old  game  of  dangling 
carrots  before  us?  Are  they  merely  seeking  a 
transfer  of  power  and  prestige  and  salaries  to  them- 
selves ?  If  we  prefer  to  jazz,  and  play  bridge  and 
golf  and  football,  all  the  hours,  instead  of  occasion- 
ally asking  ourselves  these  things,  we  shall  merely 
get  a  reshuffle  of  the  political  cards  and  a  continu- 
ance of  the  game.  The  system  is  far  too  deeply 
rooted  in  our  life  to  be  shaken  by  flinging  a  few 
pamphlets  at  it. 

We  have  all  heard  of  Nietzsche  and  his  scorn  of 
democracy.  Perhaps  when  we  look  at  ourselves  in 
this  mirror  we  wonder  if  he  was  really  as  mad  as 
we  are  told.  He  summoned  us  to  be  individuals, 
not  herds  :  human  personalities,  not  sheep.  There 
are  worse  forms  of  insanity.  When  you  come  to 
think  of  it,  it  was  mainly  politicians  who  told  us 
what  to  feel  about  him.  He  made  many  mistakes. 
He  was  a  poet  and  rhapsodist  and  pyrotechnist, 
not  a  political  teacher  or  social  thinker.  But  this 
part  of  his  teaching  it  will  pay  us  to  reflect  upon. 
We  have  too  long  been  driven  like  sheep  to  the 
Liberal  or  the  Conservative  poll.  We  are  sick  of 
election-promises  and  parliamentary  performances. 
The  beginning  of  wisdom  is  the  recognition  of  folly. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


ACTON,  Baron,  230,  231. 
Aislabie,  Mr,  62. 
Alexander  VI.,  80. 
Althorp,  Lord,  105,  107. 
Ambition     of     politicians, 

119. 

Ames,  Mayor,  145. 
American  Revolution,  the, 

81,  126. 

Anglo-Saxon  politics,  33. 
Anne,    Queen,    corruption 

under,  60. 

Aristocracy,     and     demo- 
cracy, 208. 
Arlington,  44. 
Asquith,   Mr,   12,    17,   18, 

171,  172,  175,  179,  183, 

186-9,  212-4. 
Astbury,    Lt. -Commander, 

205. 

Astor,  Lady,  244 
Australia,  politics  in,  265-6. 
Autocracy      of      Premier, 

257-8. 
Aylesbury,  Earl  of,  75. 


B 


BALFOUR,    Mr,    186,    218, 

222. 
Banbury,  Sir  F.,  174. 


Bassiney,  76. 

Belloc,  Mr,  189,  204. 

Becker,  Lieutenant,  144. 

"  Beer  and  Bible,"  154. 

Bentham,  J.,  88. 

Big  Loaf  and  Little  Loaf, 

110. 
Birmingham     adopts     the 

caucus,  150 ;  Union,  the, 

106. 

Birrell,  Mr,  179,  186,  199. 
Bishops,  the,  and  the  Re- 
form Bill,  101. 
Black  Horse  Cavalry,  the, 

143. 

Black  Rod,  246. 
Boodle,  137,  138. 
Borgia,  Alfonso,  29. 
Boston,  corruption  at,  72. 
Bottomley,    Mr    H.,    205; 

Mr  J.  H.,  240. 
Bowles,  Mr  Gibson,  221. 
Brand,  Speaker,  161. 
Bribery  at  elections,  72,  92, 

93,   109,   111,    157,    158, 

213,  230-41. 
Bright,  John,  113,  117. 
Brodrick,  the  Hon.  George, 

97. 
Brougham,   Lord,   96,   99, 

118. 

Bruce,  Mr  Justice,  289. 
Brunner,  Sir  John,  172. 
Bull,  Sir  W.,  175. 
281 


282 


INDEX 


Burdett,  Sir  F.,  88,  89. 
Burgage- voters,  73,  92. 
Burke,  84. 
Burnet,  Bishop,  58. 
Burns,  Mr  J.,  179,  218. 
Burr,  Aaron,  132. 
Buxton,  Mr  C.  R.,  232. 


CABAL,  the,  44. 

Cabinets,  the  formation  of, 
214-8,  259. 

Calcraft,  the  Rt.  Hon.  J., 
100. 

Camelford,  77;   Lord,  73. 

Campbell-Bannerman,  Mr, 
216,  258. 

Carlile,  Richard,  99. 

Carlton  Club,  the,  150. 

Carmarthen,  the  Marquis 
of,  58. 

Carnarvon,  Lord,  164,  165. 

Carson,  Sir  E.,  188. 

Cartwright,  Major,  81,  82. 

Castle  Rising,  77. 

Casuistry  of  statesmen,  96. 

Caucus,  the,  125-6,  128. 

Cecil,  Lord  Hugh,  206. 

Chamberlain,  Mr  A.,  21, 
181;  Mr  J.,  151,  155, 
164,  165,  210. 

Charles  I.,  corruption  un- 
der, 41. 

Charles  II.,  corruption  un- 
der, 44-7. 

Chartists,  the,  110,  118. 

Chatham,  the  Earl  of,  79. 

Chesterfield,  Lord,  65. 

Chicago,  corruption  in,  144, 
147. 


Child-labour  a  century  ago, 

90-1,  106. 
Churchill,  Lord  Randolph, 

160,    201;     Mr  W.,   12, 

171,  175,  178,216. 
City  of  London  corruption, 

58. 

Civil  War,  the,  42. 
Clarendon,  Earl,  44. 
Clifford,  Sir  T.,  44,  45. 
Closure,     introduction     of 

the,  161. 
Coalition,  the,  11,  17,  18, 

20,  185-6;    of  1853,  119, 

196. 

Cobbett,  88. 
Cobden,  R.,  115,  118. 
Cockerton  Judgment,  the, 

209. 

Coercion  Bill,  the  first,  158. 
Coke,  Sir  E.,  41. 
Colonial  politics,  225. 
Conservatives,  the,  18,  19, 

20,   110,   120,   154,   174, 

185,  198,  209. 

Constituencies  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  74-6. 
Contractors   expelled  from 

Parliament,  83. 
Conventions    in    America, 

133. 

Corfe  Castle,  77. 
Corn     laws,     abolition    of 

the,  110,  115. 
Cornwall,  number  of  seats 

in,  78. 
Corporations,  monopoly  of, 

72. 
Corresponding       Societies, 

86. 
Corrupt  Practices  Bill,  the, 

158-60. 


INDEX 


283 


Country   gentry,   the,    87, 

44,  58. 

Co  wen,  Mr  J.,  166. 
Craggs,  Mr,  63. 
Cranmer,  35. 
Crespigny,  P.  C.,  74. 
Crimean    War,    the,    120, 

196. 

Croft,  Brig.-General,  205. 
Cromwell,  42. 


DALZIEL,  Sir  H.,  187,  213. 
Danby,  Earl,  45,  52. 
Daughters  of  Liberty,  126. 
Debates,     uselessness     of, 

223. 
Democrats,  the  American, 

127. 

Dilke,  Sir  C.,  218. 
Disraeli,  116, 119, 121, 124, 

154,  156,  158. 
Dorset,  Earl,  55. 
Droitwich,  burgages  at,  92. 
Dunraven,  Lord,  11,  14. 


E 


EAST     India     corruption, 

57-8. 
Education,    the    need    of, 

276;    the    struggle    for, 

107,  153,  210. 
Edwards,     J.      Passmore, 

201,  221. 

Egremont,  Earl  of,  73. 
Elibank,  Master  of,  225. 
Elizabeth,  Queen,  38. 


Era  of  Good  Will,  the,  128. 
Eugenics  and  politics,  259. 
Evans,  Mr  Howard,  267. 


FACTORY-LIFE  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  106-7, 
113. 

Federalist  Party,  the,  127. 

Feminism,  weakness  of, 
271. 

Fielden,  Mr,  116. 

Finance,  the  national,  15, 
16. 

Fitzgerald,  Baron,  239. 

Folk,  Mr,  145. 

Forster,  Mr,  166. 

Fox,  C.  J.,  84. 

Franchise,  extension  of  the, 
121,  123. 

Francis,  Sir  P.,  75. 

Freeman- voters,  73,  93. 

French  Revolution,  the, 
86. 

Friends  of  the  People,  86. 


G 


GEORGE  I.,  corruption  un- 
der, 61-3. 

George  II.,  corruption  un- 
der, 63. 

George,  Mr  Lloyd,  9,  12, 
13,  16,  17,  18,  96,  177, 
189,  205,  212. 

Germany,  15,  21. 

Gerrymandering,  origin  of, 
130. 

Gibraltar  Case,  the,  221. 


284 


INDEX 


Ginnell,  Mr,  222. 
Gladstone,    Mr,    19,    111, 

112,  121,  123,  149,  151-2, 

156,    159,    162-9,    202-4, 

214;    Viscount,  23,  165, 

216. 
Godolphin,   Lord,   59,   60, 

61. 

Gordon,  death  of,  163. 
Gorst,  Sir  John,  210. 
Graham,  Sir  J.,  113,  120. 
Grantham,  Mr  Justice,  289. 
Green-Price,   Sir  R.,    160, 

201. 
Grey,  Earl,  87,  95,  98, 102 ; 

Sir   E.,    171,    172,   212; 

Sir  George,  118. 
Grimstone,  Lord,  74. 
Grote,  Mr,  105. 
Guy,  Mr  H.,  57. 


H 

HAGGERSTON  Petition,  the, 

232,  239. 
Haldane,  Lord,   172,   178, 

183. 

Halifax,  Lord,  59. 
Hamilton,  127,  129. 
Hardy,  Thomas,  86. 
Harrison,    President,    134, 

135. 
Hartington,      Lord,      164, 

165. 

Hawkins,  Mr  Justice,  202. 
Henderson,    Mr,     17,    23, 

189,  218. 
Henry  VII.,  34. 
Henry  VIII.,  38,  84. 
Hensman,     Mr     Howard, 

202. 


Herald,  The,  19. 
Hereditary  legislators,  259. 
Holidays     of     politicians, 

250. 

Holy  Alliance,  the,  90. 
Home  Rule,  struggle  over, 

163-6. 
Honours,  sale  of,  199-202, 

205-7. 
Hours  of  Parliament,  248- 

50. 

Householder- votes,  71. 
Hungry  Forties,  the,  110. 


ILLINGWORTH,  Mr,  23. 
Increased  production,  194. 
Independent         members, 

weakness  of,  229,  253. 
Indian  Silver  Scandal,  the, 

225,  226. 

Inglis,  Sir  R.  H.,  99. 
Innocent  III.,  29. 
Innocent  VIII.,  30. 
"  Irish  Brass  Band,"  the, 

157. 

Irish  Land  Bill,  1870, 151. 
Ivan  III.,  27. 


JACKSON,    President,    133, 

185. 

James  I.,  41. 
James  II.,  48,  49. 
Jefferson,  T.,  127. 
Jeffreys,  Judge,  48. 
Jesuits,  the,  32. 


INDEX 


285 


Johnstone,    Sir    H.,    160, 

201. 

Jones,  Ernest,  89. 
Julius  II.,  81. 
Justice,  administration  of, 

108. 


KITCHENER,  Lord,  183. 


LABOUCHERE,  Mr,  160,  167, 

201. 
Labour,    demands   of,    18, 

21. 

Labour  Leader,  the,  19. 
Labour  Party,  state  of  the, 

265-71. 
Law,  Mr  Bonar,  9,  12,  18, 

17,    18,    175,    176,    185, 

206. 

Lawrence,  Sir  T.,  199. 
Layard,  Sir  A.  H.,  196. 
League  of  Nations,  the, 

192. 

Leeds,  Duke  of,  58. 
Leo  X.,  28,  81,  85. 
Letters  of  Junius,  80. 
Lewis,  Wyndham,  109. 
Liberals,    the,     110,     118, 

120,    128,    157-64,    166, 

167,  173,  198. 
Lincoln,  President,  186. 
Liverpool,  elections  at,  77, 

93. 
London  in  the  eighteenth 

century,  77,  80. 
Londonderry,  Lord,  113. 
Lonsdale,  Earl,  73. 


Looe,  East  and  West,  54. 
Lords,  Reform  of  the,  162. 

167,  168,  211-4. 
Lowe,  Robert,  123. 
Lowther,  Mr,  222. 
Luttrell,  Colonel,  80. 
Lytton,  Sir  E.  B.,  197. 

M 

MACCLESFIELD,  Earl  of,  63. 
Machiavelli,  27,  28. 
McKenna,  Mr,  179,  186. 
M'Neill,  Mr  R.,  175. 
Madison,  James,  127, 129. 
Magee,  Chris,  146. 
Magna  Charta,  34. 
Malmesbury,  corruption  at, 

92. 
Manchester     School,     the, 

114,  118. 
Marconi  scandal,  the,  224, 

225. 

Markham,  Sir  A.,  187. 
Marlborough,  the  Duke  of, 

59-61. 

Masterman,  Mr,  189. 
Meres,  Sir  T.,  45,  46. 
Meyer,  Mr,  181. 
Midhurst,  burgages  at,  73. 
Midlothian  Campaign,  the, 

156. 

Mill,  James,  88. 
Minneapolis,  corruption  in, 

145,  146. 

Molesworth,  Sir  WM  98. 
Mompesson,  Sir  G.,  Jl. 
Montague,  Lady  Mary,  61. 
More,  Sir  Thomas,  35,  36. 
Morley,    Lord,    111,    114, 

116,  153,  168,  202. 
Munitions,  prices  of,  182. 


286 


INDEX 


N 


NABOBS,  the,  65,  79. 

National  Liberal  Federa- 
tion, the,  151. 

Newark  Election,  the,  111, 
112. 

Newcastle,  the  Duke  of, 
64 ;  Program,  the,  167. 

New  York,  political  de- 
velopment in,  131-3,  139- 
44. 

New  Zealand,  politics  in, 
265,  266. 

Nicolai,  F.,  32. 

Nietzsche,  277. 

Nobili,  F.  de,  32. 

Normans,  work  of  the,  34. 

North,  Lord,  82,  84. 

North  Briton,  the,  80. 

Northcliffe,  Lord,  188. 

Northcote,  Sir  Stafford, 
155. 


O 


O'CONNELL,  Daniel,  95,  97, 

109. 

Oldfield,  54,  74. 
Old  Sarum,  54,  66,  73. 
Owen,  Robert,  88;   R.  D., 

141. 


PAINE,  Thomas,  86. 
Palmerston,      Lord,      120, 

121,  122,  197. 
Papacy,  the,  and  political 

corruption,  28-32. 
Parliamentary     procedure, 

244,  248. 


Parnell,  Mr,  164,  202-4. 

Paul,  III.,  32. 

Paul,  Mr  Herbert,  121. 

Pease,  Mr,  186. 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  105,  116. 

Pelham,  Henry,  64. 

Penryn,  93. 

Perceval,  Mr,  89. 

Petre,  Father,  49. 

Philadelphia,       corruption 

in,  146,  147. 
Phillpotts,  Bishop,  102. 
Pitt,  W.,  the  elder,  66,  79, 

88 ;  the  younger,  83,  84, 

87. 
Pittsburg,    corruption    in, 

146. 

Place,  Francis,  88. 
Plimsoll,  Mr,  155. 
Pocket-boroughs,  70,  71. 
Pork  Bills,  148. 
Pre-Reform       Parliament, 

the,  74-76,  77,  87,  91. 
Private  secretaries,  217. 
Profiteering,  14,  180,  182. 
Proportional     Representa- 
tion, 273. 
Puritans,  the,  37,  40,  43, 

44. 


R 


RADICALS,  the,  83,  89,  104, 

105,  109,  118. 
Reform  Bill,  the,  95-7,  99- 

103. 

Reform  Club,  the  150. 
Reform  of  Parliament,  274- 

6. 

Reformation,  the,  37-40. 
Reformed          Parliament, 

work  of,  the,  106-10. 


INDEX 


287 


Registration,  evils  of,  240. 
Repeaters,  142. 
Rhodes,  Mr  Cecil,  202-4. 
Robertson,  Mr  J.  M.,  187. 
Roberts,  Lord,  173. 
Roosevelt,  Mr,  172. 
Rosebery,  Lord,  167. 
Rosenthal,  144. 
Rotten  boroughs,  54. 
Rousseau,  80. 
Runciman,   Mr,   179,   181, 

186. 
Russell,  Lord  John,  93,  99, 

102. 


ST   Louis,    corruption   in, 

145. 
Sale  of  honours,   199-202, 

205-7. 
Salisbury,  Lord,  162,  164, 

165,  218. 
Schnadhorst,  Mr,  161,  167, 

203. 
Serajevo,  the  murders  at, 

177. 

Seymour,  Sir  E.,  58. 
Shaftesbury,     Lord,     113, 

114. 

Shelburne,  Lord,  72. 
Simon,  Sir  John,  188. 
Smith,  Mr  F.  E.,  176. 
Somers,  Lord,  57. 
Sons  of  Liberty,  126. 
South  Sea  Bubble,  the,  62. 
Spa  Fields  Riot,  the,  90. 
Spain,  corruption  in,  224. 
Speaker,   position   of    the, 

245. 

Spencer,  Earl,  74. 
Spicer,  Sir  H.,  213. 


Stanhope,  General,  61,  62. 
Sunderland,  Earl,  56,  57, 

62. 
Swathling,  Lord,  226. 


TAMMANY  Hall,  140 ;  Soci- 
ety, 131-3,  139-44. 

Tennyson,  Mr,  105. 

Thelwall,  John,  86. 

Thomas,  Mr  J.  H.,  188. 

Tooke,  Home,  81. 

Tories,  the,  46,  55,  56,  81, 
95,  102,  105,  109. 

Treasury,  control  of  seats 
by  the,  78,  81,  83. 

Trevor,  Sir  John,  52,  58. 

Tweed  gang,  the,  139,  143. 


U 

UNREFORMED     Parliament, 

the,  91-3. 
Upcher,  the  Rev.   A.   P., 

287. 


VAN  BUREN,  Senator,  133. 
Victoria,  Queen,  214. 


W 

WALLINGFORD,     corruption 

at,  72. 
Walpole,  Horace,  61,  64; 

Sir  Robert,  60,  61,   63, 

64. 


288 


INDEX 


War,    antecedents   of   the, 

171-8. 

Ward-heeJers,  142. 
Wardle,  Colonel,  89. 
Wedgwood,  Mr,  222. 
Wellington,  the  Duke   of, 

95,  102. 

Westbury,  burgages  at,  78. 
Wetherell,  Sir  C.,  100. 
Wharton,  Lord,  57,  58. 
Whigs,  the,  45,  46,  55,  56, 

80,  95,  97,  102,  105,  108, 

116. 

Whips,  149. 
Wilkes,  John,  80,  81. 


William  III.,  49,  52,  59. 
William  IV.,  94,  102. 
Wolsey,  Cardinal,  34,  35. 
Women  in  politics,  271. 
Worcester     Petition,     the, 

233. 
Wyndham,  Mr,  84. 


YARMOUTH    Petition,    the, 

233. 
York,  the  Duke  of,  89. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


!lT^-!.;SRAki 


Wff- 


LD  21-100w-7,'39(402s) 


YB  08503 


\ 


•A* 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


